How to deal with a hard bargainer? - Chapter 8

What is tricky bargaining?

Tricky bargaining refers to tactics someone may use to try and take advantage of the other in order to help the user “win” some substantive gain in an unprincipled contest of will. They range from lies and psychological abuse to various forms of pressure tactics, and can be illegal and unethical. Most people respond by hoping for the best and keeping quiet. Other people respond in kind and start to use these tactics in return. This is an ineffective response, as tricky bargaining is designed to be used only by one side. They do not work if the other side knows that they are being used against them. The best way to counter them is to engage in principled negotiation about the negotiation process.

How to use principled negotiation about the negotiation process?

There are three steps in using principled negotiation about the negotiation process where one side is using tricky bargaining:

• Recognize the tactic (learn to spot particular ploys that indicate deception).
• Raise the issue explicitly. Discussing the tactic makes it less effective and may cause the other side to worry about alienating you.
• Question the tactic's legitimacy and desirability.

How to produce a wise agreement about procedure in an efficient and amicable way?

Even though this negotiation focuses on the procedure instead of the substance, the method of principled negotiation remains the same:

• Separate the people from the problem (question the tactic, not their personal integrity). It is easier to change the negotiation process than to reform the person you are dealing with.
• Focus on interests, not on positions.
• Invent options for mutual gain (for example by suggesting alternative games to play).
• Insist on using objective criteria (for example by reciprocity or by framing the principle behind each tactic as a proposed rule for the negotiation).

How can your BATNA contribute to creating a fair negotiation?

If none of the abovementioned tactics help to produce a wise agreement about procedure, you can use your BATNA as a last resort and walk out. You can make it clear that you do not believe the other side is interested in a negotiation that you both believe will produce results, and tell them that you are available in the future. When you walk out on legitimate grounds, and they are genuinely interested in an agreement, they are quite likely to want to re-negotiate with you.

What are the tricky tactics?

The tricky tactics can be divided into three categories, namely deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure tactics. These tactics will be discussed further and also how principled negotiation may be used to counter it.

What is deliberate deception?

Deliberate deception regards misrepresentation about facts, authority, or intentions. It is the most common form of tricky tactics. A distinction needs to be made between less than full disclosure and deception. Good and honest negotiation does not require total disclosure. If neither side wants to give full disclosure to the other side, it may be helpful to disclose their thinking to a trustworthy third party who can then tell whether there is a possibility for potential agreement. These are examples of deliberate deception:

• Phony facts.
• Ambiguous authority.
• Dubious intentions. In some negotiations the other side may say they will comply with the agreement, when actually their intentions are not to. It is often possible to build compliance features into the agreement.

How can you protect yourself again the other side using phony facts?

The best way to protect yourself against the other side using knowingly false statements is by disentangling the people from the problem. You should separate the negotiation from trust: you cannot trust the other side, unless you have a good reason to do so. It is also acceptable to verify factual assertions to reduce the incentive for deception and the risk of being cheated.

How can you protect yourself against the other side's ambiguous authority?

The person you are negotiating with may let you to believe that they have full authority to compromise when actually they do not. It is possible that once you have reached an agreement, they inform you that they now need someone else's approval. You cannot assume the other side has full authority without verifying this. A good way to protect yourself against this tactic is to clarify early in the negotiation that any effort to reopen one issue automatically reopens all issues. This prevents what you thought was an agreement to be used as a base for further negotiation.

What is psychological warfare?

Psychological warfare regards tactics that are designed to make you feel uncomfortable, so that you will have a subconscious desire to end the negotiation as soon as possible. These are examples of psychological warfare tactics:

• Stressful physical environment.
• Personal attacks.
• Good-guy/bad-guy routine.
• Threats.

How can a stressful situation influence the negotiation?

If you allow the other side to choose the physical environment, you should be aware of what they are choosing and what effects it may have. You should also be aware that it may have been deliberately designed to make you want to end negotiations quickly. Sometimes, it may be advantageous to meet in the other side´s environment. It may make them more comfortable and more open to your suggestions. It will also be easier for you to walk out.

How can personal attacks influence the negotiation?

The other side may use verbal and nonverbal communication to make you feel uncomfortable. Think of comments on your appearance, disrespecting your status by making you wait, interrupting you or your other negotiations, refusing to listen to you, or refusing to look at you. Recognizing the tactic and talking about it will nullify its effect and probably prevent them from doing it again.

How can threats influence a negotiation and how to deal with them?

A threat can be defined as a proposition that issues demands and warns of the costs of noncompliance. Threats can easily destroy a negotiation as they lead to counter threats in an escalating spiral. The effectiveness of a threat depends on the credibility of its communication. A threat does not work if you have not heard or understood it. There are several ways to interfere with the communication process of threats: you can ignore them, you can take them as unauthorized, you can view them as irrelevant, or you can make it risky to communicate them. The best response is to be principled and make it clear that you only negotiate on merits and do not respond to threats.

Why is it better to use warnings instead of threats?

A better way to communicate the same information as threats is via warnings. Warnings outline the consequences of the other side's actions, suggesting those that will occur independently of your will rather than those you could choose to make happen. You can warn the other side about what you may do in the event of no agreement, as long as you can show that those actions will be done to protect your interests, not to coerce or to punish the other side. Warnings are much more legitimate than threats and are less vulnerable to counter threats.

What are positional pressure tactics?

Positional pressure tactics are designed to structure the situation so that only one side can effectively make concessions. These are examples of positional pressure tactics:

• Refusing to negotiate.
• Extreme demands. When the other side uses extreme demands you can bring it to their attention and ask for justification, as it will even look ridiculous to them.
• Escalating demands.
• Lock-in tactics.
• Hardhearted partner. If the other negotiator says that he personally would not have any objection to yielding to your request, but unfortunately his hardhearted partner would, you simply request to deal directly with the hardhearted partner.
• A calculated delay. If the other tries to postpone coming to an agreement until a time that is more favorable for them, you can try and create a fading opportunity for them, or look for objective conditions that can be used to establish credible deadlines.
• “Take it or leave it."

What can you do when the other refuses to negotiate?

First you need to recognize the tactic that is being used. The other side is attempting to use their participating in the negotiation as a bargaining chip to obtain some concession on substance. One variant of this ploy is to set preconditions for negotiations. Once you have recognized the tactic you should talk about their refusal to negotiate and find out what their interests are in not negotiating. You could suggest other options, like using letters or negotiating through a third party. If they are not interested, you can insist on using principles.

Why would someone escalate their demands and how should you respond?

Someone may raise one of his demands for every concession he makes, or reopen issues that have already been settled. They may do this firstly because it may decrease the overall concession, and secondly because of the psychological effect of making you want to agree quickly before he raises any more demands. If this happens it may be best to call for a break to avoid making impulsive decisions. You can bring the tactic to their attention and insist on principle.

What are lock-in tactics?

Lock-in tactics are communication strategies that force the other to make concessions or make it impossible for the other to yield. It is an attempt of the other to solidify (or lock in) their position, forcing you to be the one to give in for the negotiation to continue. However, lock-in tactics are gambles, and as they call your bluff and you do not give in, they may have to make concessions anyway and have to explain this to the rest of their side. This can be embarrassing for them and can threaten reaching an agreement. Like with threats, this strategy relies on communication. You can try to weaken their statements, or just not take it seriously. Most importantly, do not make the commitment a big deal. By deemphasizing it, it will be easier for them to back down.

How to respond to “take it or leave it”?

Confronting someone with a firm choice is not inherently wrong. It works quite efficiently in business, but it is not interactive decision-making or a negotiation. The best may be to ignore it at first by talking as if you did not hear it, changing the subject, or introducing other solutions. You can also bring up the tactic specifically and let them know what they have to lose if no agreement is reached. You may want to offer them a face-saving way to get out of the situation.