Negotiation Tactics

It is undeniable that negotiation is one of the most significant skills required to manage and run a successful organization. Life is more fulfilling when one learn and master negotiation skills in that most of the negotiation strategies helps one to get the best deal possible. It is important to note that, the approach that a negotiator takes heavily depends on the tactic used. In essence, there are various tactics that one can apply, which are time tactics, good cop/ bad cop, ambiguous authority, set-aside tactic, and empty-pocket tactic. Although each tactic has its own benefits when used, it is not an easy task to identify the best tactic and strategies for reducing risks. With this, the aim of this essay is to develop a general strategy for counteracting the five tactics, and in discussing, this paper will provide a brief overview of each tactic.

Time pressure tactic

A research by Taya (2010) indicates that time pressure and time investment are two tactics related to time. The time pressure tactic outlines that if one side is under time pressure to reach into agreement quickly, it offers the other side incredible negotiating power. The secret to utilize time pressure as a tactic is to establish the other side’s deadline, but do not let them comprehend your deadline (Björn Wellenius, 2010). Now, in cases when one feels the other party is using the time pressure as a defensive mechanism, one should let the party know that you are not pressured by time. One of the effectual counters is to include all negotiation details allotted such as time. This is paramount as it reduces the chance for the other side to drag out negotiations or apply pressure.

Time Investment Tactic

One of the strategies for counteracting time pressure tactic is applying the time investment tactic. This tactic works effectively because the longer one keeps the other side negotiating, the more likely one will be to change his point of view. Time is a precious commodity, so the tactic of time investment works well over time pressure tactic. In cases when the time investment tactic is used against you, one should disregard the time wasted and embrace time investment.

Good cop/Bad cop

Good cop/Bad cop is the most commonly used tactics to apply pressure to the other side without risking the negative effects of direct confrontation. This tactic can be effective when combined with other tactics such as time pressure, walkout, emotion, and ambiguous authority. The best way to respond to good cop/bad cop is to reverse the playing of good cop/bad cop back to them.

Ambiguous authority tactic

One uses the ambiguous authority tactic when one is the chief negotiator. In such a case, one should possess ultimate authority to finalize the main deal. The best approach to counter the ambiguous authority tactic is to refuse negotiating with anyone who does not have ultimate authority to bind their company. Sometimes applying the ambiguous tactic is important as it helps the other party to admit they are using the tactic. According to Panke (2012), some negotiators use deadlocks as the main tactic to create negotiation capital or set up other tactics. When the other side insists on an issue you cannot live with, one should simply acknowledge their position and suggest setting the issue aside for a while and moving on to other issues.

Set-aside tactic

Utilizing a set-aside tactic is important as it enhances time investment factor. When the other side is using the set-aside tactic against the other party, one should reverse the effects of the tactic and simply take it over. In such cases, empty pocket tactic is the best tactic to counteract the strategy.

Empty Pocket tactic

Empty pockets tactic is effectively used when confronting the other party that you have run out of words. In cases when conflicts are more than one can manage, one should inform the other party that he has reached the limit of negotiation flexibility. In doing, one eliminates defeats or blames that would emerge from not doing the right thing.

References

Björn Wellenius. (2010). Negotiation and the global information economy. Political Science Quarterly, 124 (4), 760-761.

Panke, D. (2012). Negotiation effectiveness: Why some states are better than others in making their voices count in EU negotiations. Comparative European Politics, 10 (1), 111-132. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/cep.2011.3

Taya, R. C. (2010). Moral emotions and unethical bargaining: The differential effects of empathy and perspective taking in deterring deceitful negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 94 (4), 569-579. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0338-z