Home > Learn > Negotiation > Negotiation Skills Part III: Recognizing competitive strategy
Negotiation Skills Part III: Recognizing competitive strategy
As effective as interest-based bargaining might be, there are times when it is not going to work.
There are at least two situations in which this might happen.. The first is where are you negotiating over the price of a single transaction item — such as a new car. The second is where you are negotiating against someone who wants as much as they can get and does not care to find “win-win” solutions.
As a divorce mediator, I see these “competitive” strategies being used often. They can all be effectively countered if you recognize them and know how to deal with them.
Generally, the competitive negotiator seeks to persuade the other person that he or she will not agree to settle above or below a certain point. These strategies can be particularly effective against inexperienced or conciliatory negotiators. Many of them will be familiar to most readers:
Making pre-conditions to negotiation: insisting that certain conditions be met before the negotiation begins.
Using information as power; gathering, distorting and hiding information with the goal of manipulating the other person’s perception of their options.
Encouraging the other person to make the first offer; this allows a negotiator to make a counter-offer with a favourable “mid-way point” in mind, anchoring the likely outcome where he or she wants it.
Starting with very high or very low first offers. Research shows that the negotiator who opens with a high or low offer and makes few concessions generally has the most success in negotiation.
Not reciprocating concessions; this tactic will sometimes cause the other person to make yet another concession in an effort to keep the negotiation moving.
Making small, infrequent concessions that decline in value. The aim is to create the impression that there is not much to give.
Escalating demands; by raising demands before or during the negotiation, one can find the limits of what the other is willing to give in order to get an agreement.
Linking positions and concessions to convincing justifications. Experienced negotiators will persuasively justify their positions, even if they are not the real reasons.
Making last-minute demands; after a long negotiation in which both parties have invested time and effort, one person raises a new issue as a “deal-breaker”.
Making a series of small demands which may seem easier to tolerate at the time but, when added up, become considerable. (known as the “salami” technique.)
“Take it or leave it”: making a single, inflexible offer to settle everything.
Blaming; this is very common in divorce negotiation. It can induce guilt which leads to concessions, and also is an aggressive way of escalating the conflict and wearing the other person down.
Threats, aggression, sudden mood changes; all of these tactics are not necessarily used intentionally in negotiation, but they are certainly used commonly.
Making a “final offer”, leading to acceptance or deadlock and walk-out.
Use of deadlines, both real and artificial.
Bringing in authorities or other forms of status and credentials to bolster one’s case. Parties in divorce mediation, for example, will often make use of their high-powered lawyers to affect the other person’s perception of the strength of their case.
Negotiation Skills Part III: Recognizing competitive strategy
As effective as interest-based bargaining might be, there are times when it is not going to work.
There are at least two situations in which this might happen.. The first is where are you negotiating over the price of a single transaction item — such as a new car. The second is where you are negotiating against someone who wants as much as they can get and does not care to find “win-win” solutions.
As a divorce mediator, I see these “competitive” strategies being used often. They can all be effectively countered if you recognize them and know how to deal with them.
Generally, the competitive negotiator seeks to persuade the other person that he or she will not agree to settle above or below a certain point. These strategies can be particularly effective against inexperienced or conciliatory negotiators. Many of them will be familiar to most readers: