Don’t be intimidated by the most common negotiation tactics.

See how you can prepare yourself and

be successful in any negotiation scenario.
In any negotiation, both parties are working to achieve the best possible result for their company.
During the course of a negotiation, there are several tactics that might be utilized to gain an
advantage. While not everyone engages in these tactics, a recent AMA survey found that some are
more widespread than others. With over 200 responses, AMA now presents the list of the most
prevalent negotiation tactics:

1. Highball/Lowball – an extremely high or low offer (29%)

2. Bogey – pretending a particular issue is important (17%)
3. Snow Job – overwhelming you with too much information (12%)
4. The Nibble – asking for a small concession that wasn’t discussed (11%)
5. Lack of Authority – your counterpart cannot make decisions (11%)
6. Good Cop/Bad Cop – one negotiator is reasonable, the other is not (8%)
7. Deadlines – creating a deadline that pressures you into a decision (6%)
8. The Brink – the “take it or leave it” approach (6%)

As you can see, some negotiation tactics are more common than others. Topping the list was the
“Highball/Lowball” method, which received almost one-third of the votes. However, it is still possible
to fall victim to any of these methods. Let’s take a look at the top five tactics identified in this survey
and see how you can avoid being swindled in your next negotiation.

Negotiation Tactic #1: Highball/Lowball

The highball/lowball tactic is one of the oldest hardball moves in the book. Your counterpart will open
with an extremely high or low offer, which they hope will force you to reconsider your resistance
points and goal. If you haven’t done your research, or aren’t aware of what is happening, you may
fall for it. The best way to navigate this scenario is to call their offer out and refuse to continue unless
they are going to take you seriously. By insisting on a more reasonable opening offer, rather than
trying to counter, you force them to continue on your terms while appearing to be more reasonable
yourself.
If the attempt is obvious, you should also voice your displeasure at their tactic and threaten to walk
away. Calling out their move will show that you are familiar with how these deals happen, and you
won’t continue unless they change their stance. If it is less obvious, ask them to justify their extreme
offer. Do your research ahead of time and know what your alternatives (BATNA) and resistance
points are. If your counterparts do not cooperate, then you should seriously reconsider your
partnership with them.

Negotiation Tactic #2: Bogey

A bogey is a particular issue that the negotiator pretends is vitally important to the deal, though in
reality it is unimportant to them. By agreeing to concede the bogey issue, they then expect you to
concede something important as well. This is one of the more difficult tactics to detect because it is
rare that you will know what your counterpart’s instructions and intentions are. One way you may be
able to tell is if your counterpart makes a sudden change regarding their attitude towards the issue.
For example, if they are adamantly against conceding the issue, but then suddenly offer it up in
exchange for something else, the issue was likely unimportant in the first place.
The best way to fight this tactic is to ask questions. You should immediately question why that
particular issue is so important, or why they changed their stance so quickly. This might force them
to reveal how important that part of the deal actually is, or allow you to come up with alternative
solutions that don’t require you giving up an important aspect of the deal. If they balk at your
alternatives, they don’t truly value that issue, and you know that you’re dealing with a bogey.
Remember, in any negotiation, information is power, and this is particularly true with the bogey.

Negotiation Tactic #3: Snow Job

A snow job is a particularly common tactic designed to confuse and distract you. It happens when
the other party reveals a lot of information, overwhelming you with facts and figures. When you’re on
the receiving end of a snow job, your biggest challenge is to determine what is truly important and
what is simply there to distract you. It often features very technical language and requires expertise
in a subject area in order to translate what is being said.
Fighting this tactic requires you to be firm on your negotiation stance. You need to get to the real
issues, so ask specifically and consistently what is important in the pile of information thrown at you.
Do not back down! Ask questions until you clearly understand what is being discussed, and bring in
experts of your own if necessary. The key is not to agree to anything you do not understand, which
is the intended purpose of the snow job tactic. Pay close attention to what they are saying, and look
for inconsistencies in their responses.

Negotiation Tactic #4: The Nibble

The nibble will be presented towards the end of a negotiation. After a lot of time has been spent
negotiating, your counterpart will agree to the deal provided you agree to a small stipulation that was
not previously discussed. The idea is to more easily gain your agreement after you’ve been worn
down and just want to get a deal done.
Fighting this tactic is easy. At the start of the talks, lay out every issue you want to discuss, and ask
your counterpart to do the same. Throughout the talks, continuously ask if there is anything else they
want to put on the table. If they don’t, you have given them every opportunity and should feel no guilt
in turning down the nibble. If they attempt the nibble, have a set of small issues yourself that you can
counter with. They will either accept or more likely back down and agree to the original deal as
discussed.

Negotiation Tactic #5: Lack of Authority

When dealing with a negotiation where you don’t know if your counterpart has decision-making
power, simply ask them. If at any point they reveal that they are not authorized to make a deal,
refuse to continue until you’re talking to the person who is. Talking to anyone else would be a waste
of your time and effort.
The other party is banking on the hope that this tactic will drain your energy and willpower. They
hope that, by the fifth time they’ve “had to check with their superiors,” you’ll back down from your
position. So, ask up front who the final decision maker is, and don’t talk to anyone else.

Basic Negotiation Tactics

What are Negotiation Tactics?
Negotiation tactics are strategic statements or behaviors spoken or performed by a negotiator to
gain an advantage over the other party. You should be familiar with negotiation tactics to avoid
allowing the other party to take advantage of you.

What kind of tactics might be used in a negotiation?

There are several tactics the other party may use in a negotiation. The following list contains six of
the most common used tactics:
  Highball/Low ball
The “highball/low ball” tactic occurs when one party in the negotiation makes an extreme demand or
offer that is either too high or too low. This negotiator is looking for an emotional reaction from the
other party. The emotional reaction will let him or her know how informed the other party is about the
value of the objective in question.

If the other party seems to sincerely consider the offer, the first negotiator knows the other party is
not aware that the offer is not reasonable. If the other party seems offended, the negotiator knows
that the demand or offer will need to be adjusted because the other party knows the accurate value.

 Delays/Time pressures
Delays occur when a negotiator intentionally stalls making a decision until a more convenient time.
The negotiator who uses this tactic usually hopes the other party will make a better offer or a
significant concession, fearing that the negotiation may not otherwise succeed.

Time pressures occur when a negotiator insists that the other party make a quick decision. The
negotiator desires a quick decision with the hope that the other party will make a better offer or a
significant concession.

 Stonewalling
The “stonewalling” tactic occurs when a negotiator refuses to negotiate or is not flexible on an issue.
This negotiator hopes to intimidate the other party with his or her lack of flexibility. The other party
may become so frustrated or desperate to make a deal that he or she gives in to the demands of the
“stonewalling” negotiator.

 Bad temper
This tactic is another type of intimidation. The negotiator acts in an angry manner, hoping to make
the other party feel frightened or guilty. If the outburst is bad enough, the other party will give the
negotiator whatever he or she requests.

 Splitting the difference

The “split the difference” tactic occurs when one negotiator requests both parties to concede their full
objective and settle for meeting halfway between the two objectives. This tactic usually occurs near
the end of the negotiation, when it appears an agreement cannot be reached any other way.

 Good guy/Bad guy

This tactic involves two individuals on one side of the negotiation. One of the individuals is the bad
guy who acts unreasonable or has a bad temper. The good guy plays a more reasonable role with
the intention of making the other party think he or she has an ally against the bad guy.

Successful negotiators usually select the best tactic that fits a specific occasion and take into
consideration the other party’s skill set.

Dirty Tricks and What You Can Do

About Them
Dirty Trick Description / Example / Counter-Tactic
1. Phony Facts Typically the numbers appear valid but the assumptions
upon which the numbers or conclusions are based are
dubious.

Example: You need to buy an Airbus plane. We have far

fewer planes crashes and accidents than Boeing does.

Counter Tactic: Ask them to state their assumptions or

explain how they derived their numbers.

2. Higher Authority It is common for a negotiator to delay reaching an

agreement by claiming that his or her authority is
limited. The other party will become impatient and give in
to the earlier demands. Alternatively, it gives the negotiator
a out if the settlement is not desirable.

Example: "Well, your proposal sound interesting but I will

have to take it back to my boss for final approval."

Counter Tactic: Find out who the person with authority is

and negotiate with that person initially. Appeal to the person
ego and say, "So you don't have any authority. And I
thought you had some power."

3. Add-ons A common tactic used in sales negotiations. Negotiator

asks for a small concession and adds it on to the item
already being negotiated.

Example: ``I'll take the computer if you will throw in free

maintenance for a year."

Counter Tactic: Recognize the tactic for what it is. Give

them the add on if you would have anyway. If not, say no.
4. Personal Attacks A variety of tactics fall under the heading of personal
attacks. They are all designed to make you feel
uncomfortable and to make you forget about your real
negotiation objectives.

Example: They can attack your status, ignore you during a

negotiation, fail to make eye contact, or comment
negatively on your appearance, your intelligence , or
integrity.

Counter Tactic: Call it for what it is. Refocus the

negotiation on the problem at hand.

5. Good Guy / Bad Guy One person plays the good guy; the other the bad
guy. Good guy tries to keep negotiation moving in desired
direction. Bad guy imposes limits.

Example: "Joe is really tough to deal with in these situation.

Maybe if you can give in a little, I can talk some sense into
him."

Counter Tactic: Identify the tactic and discuss it openly.

6. Intimidation A variety of influence tactics fall into this category
including anger, fear, emotional ploys and guilt. They may
also claim there are legitimate channels to go through.

Example: "How dare you make such a low offer. You must
know nothing about the airline industry."

Counter tactic: Go to your balcony when you feel your

emotions taking over for your reason. When you are calmer
collect information to counter the intimidation.

7. Lock-in Tactics Communication strategies which force the other party to

make concessions.

Example: A foreign national publicly announces that it will

not withdraw its troops. Because the statement is public,
the other side gives in.

Counter Tactic: Recognize the ploy for what it is and

publicly acknowledge t as a tactic. Proactively, state that
such tactics will not be tolerated.
 8. Take it or leave it This is really not a negotiation approach. It is, however, an
approach to conducting business which blocks negotiating.

Example: ``This is the salary we are offering for the

position. If it is unacceptable, then we will have to select
someone else for the position."

Counter Tactic: Call their bluff. Ignore and keep on talking.

9. High Ball / Low Ball Negotiator starts with an extremely high or low opening
offer. Affects decision anchor point and adjustment from
the opening offer is usually insufficient. Risk is that other
party may consider negotiation is a waste of time.

Example: "We will offer you $100,000 for the house (when
it is worth $250,000)."

Counter Tactic: Identify in advance your BATNA. Have

objective information to counter their offer. Ask them to
justify the offer.

10. Bogey Negotiator pretends an important issue is not important.

Later in the negotiation, the item of value can be
traded. Useful if you can identify an issue that IS important
to the other side but of little value to your side.

Example: "Our budget only allows us to pay so much."

Counter Tactic: Never accept the assumption on face value.

Find out why the budget is fixed.

11. Chicken Negotiator combine a bluff with a purported action. It is a

high risk strategy. If the other side calls their bluff, they
must be willing to carry through with the action.

Example: ``If you don't accept our offer, we will close the
plant."

Counter Tactic: Ignore the bluff and keep on talking or call

their bluff.
12. Exaggerated Negotiators may intentionally describe interests, time
Assertions preference or needs one way when they want them to go
another way.

Example: "I've really got to have that item delivered by

Friday."

Counter Tactic: Call them on it. Give them what they want
if it is of low value to you and then leverage that to help get
what you want.

13. Threats A useful tactic if one party has the power to inflict relatively
large punishment on the other without substantial
retaliation. The threat must be believed and you must be
willing to follow through with the threat.

Example: "If that assignment is not completed by Friday, I

will fire you."

Counter Tactic: Make the threat salient and discuss the

ramifications.

14. Scoundrel An unethical maneuver. The scoundrel lures an opponent

into a deal by making an attractive offer. Once the other
person is mentally committed, the scoundrel reneges on the
deal and uses a variety of tactics to repudiate the deal
(higher authority , legal delays, lost paperwork).

Example: "Yes, we did have a deal but that was before I

knew you needed A and B and C. Those, of course, will be
additional costs."

Counter Tactic: Run, don't walk away at the first indication

that you are dealing with a scoundrel. If it is too late, get
the best legal help possible.
15. Scrambled Eggs The negotiator deliberately makes a deal complex to create
confusion.

Example: Car leasing agreements have come under attack

recently for being so complex that individuals do not
understand what they are really paying for the leased car.

Counter Tactic: Admit the negotiation is becoming to

complex and go to your balcony until you have time to
analyze the situation.

16. Foot in the door The negotiator gets you to make a small concession. He or
she then builds from that base to get you to make more
concessions.

Example: "If the price is right, will you buy a car from me
today?"

Counter Tactics: Know what your negotiation latitude is in

advance and stay within that range.

17. Deadlines Imposing a time limit often sets the boundaries on a

negotiation. Too often people accept another's time
deadline as their own.

Example: ``I need to have your decision on this matter by

Friday at 5 p.m."

Counter tactic: Determine why this deadline is important.

Explain and impose your own deadline.
8 Typical Hardball Tactics

1. Good Cop / Bad Cop

a. “Bad cop” plays the role of the bad guy who takes tough measures (threats, intimidation) against

the targeted party

b. “Bad cop” leaves the negotiation table for the “Good cop” to come and offer the targeted party “an

easy way out” of the situation

c. The “easy way out” option is meant for the targeted party to yield to the team’s demands

Advantages

• Often results in negotiated agreements

Disadvantages

• Easily seen through by targeted party

• Can be countered easily by clearly exposing the negotiators’ plot

• Distracts the negotiators from the negotiation goals

Dealing with Good Cop / Bad Cop

• Openly exposing the negotiators’ plot

2. Lowball / Highball

a. Starts the negotiation with a unreasonable low(high) opening offer

Advantages

• Aims to get the other party to re-evaluate his opening offer & move closer to his resistance point

Disadvantages

• Other party may not want to negotiate at all

• Requires a skilled negotiator to explain his extreme opening offer if the other party continues to

negotiate

Dealing with Lowball / Highball

• Best tactic : ask for a more reasonable opening offer instead of a counter offer

• Insisting on a reasonable opening offer before negotiating further

• Show that you are familiar with the bargaining mix and therefore you will not be fooled

• Show your displeasure of such tactic used against you by threatening to leave the negotiating table

• Come up with an extreme counter offer

3. Bogey

a. Negotiator pretends that an unimportant issue is quite important to him

b. Use this tactic to trade and make concessions for issues that are really important
Advantages

• Difficult to defend against

Disadvantages

• Difficult to enact

• May backfire if the other party takes you seriously and therefore giving you what you want to bogey

away

Dealing with Bogey

• Question why the negotiator wants a particular outcome or makes a sudden reversal in positions

• Not conceding to what the negotiator wants after his sudden reversal in position

4. The Nibble

a. Negotiator adds a small item(the nibble) to the agreement when the both parties had spent

significant time & effort in negotiation and the agreement is near

Advantages

• None

Disadvantages

• Although the nibble is small in size, it’s enough to upset the other party

• The other party may be motivated to seek revenge in future negotiations

Dealing with The Nibble

• Ask the negotiator “What else do you want?” every time he asks for a nibble, until all issues are

raised and identified

• Come up with one’s own nibbles in exchange for the negotiator’s nibbles

5. Chicken

a. The negotiator uses a big bluff with a threatened action, in order to force the other party to

“chicken out” and yield to their demands

Advantages

• Non

Disadvantages

• Turns the negotiation into a high-stakes gamble for both sides

• Makes it hard to distinguish whether either party will follow through on his/her stated course of

action

Dealing with Chicken

• Preparation before negotiation helps to understand both parties’ situations

• Using external sources to verify what’s exchanged in the negotiation

6. Intimidation

a. Many tactics take the form of intimidation

b. Common point of these tactics: the use of emotional ploys to force the other party to yield

c. Other forms of intimidation : increasing the appearance of legitimacy & guilt

d. All these tactics make intimidator feel more powerful

e. Leads the targeted party to give in due to emotional rather than objective reasons

Dealing with Intimidation

• Discuss the negotiation process with the intimidator, stating that you expect a fair negotiation

process

• Ignore the intimidation

• Using a team to negotiate with the intimidator

o Not everyone in the team is intimidated by the same things

o Team members provide mutual support to one another through the process

7. Aggressive Behavior

a. Similar to intimidation tactics

b. Being aggressive in establishing your position and attacking the other party’s position eg.

i. Asking for best offer early in the negotiation

ii. Getting the other party to explain his position by justifying item by item

c. Getting the other party to make many concessions

Dealing with Aggressive Behavior

• Stop the negotiation to discuss the process itself

• Using a team of negotiators to negotiate with the aggressive party

8. Snow Job

a. To overwhelm the other party with large amount of information, such that the other party have a

problem determining which information are real or important

b. To use technical or expert language such that a non-expert party cannot understand and would

simply acknowledge it just to avoid embarrassment

Dealing with Snow Job

• Not to be afraid to ask questions until a clearly understood answer is obtained

• Use of technical experts to discuss and verify technical issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aggressive Behavior A group of tactics similar to those described under intimidation

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

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