Editing Negotiation (section)

=== {{vanchor|Tactics|Negotiation tactics}} ===
Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process. More often than not they are subtle, difficult to identify, and used for multiple purposes. Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus is on taking as much value off the table as possible.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley and Sons, LTD., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=232}}</ref> Many negotiation tactics exist. Below are a few commonly used tactics.
* '''[[Auction]]:''' The bidding process is designed to create competition.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=240}}</ref> When multiple parties want the same thing, pit them against one another. When people know that they may lose out on something, they want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on, but they also want to win, just to win. Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can drive up the price.
*'''[[Brinksmanship|Brinkmanship]]:''' One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point where the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge of what that party is willing to accommodate. Successful brinkmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.<ref>{{cite book|last=Goldman|first=Alvin|title=Settling For More: Mastering Negotiating Strategies and Techniques|year=1991|publisher=The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.|location=Washington, D.C.|isbn=978-0-87179-651-6|page=[https://archive.org/details/settlingformorem0000gold/page/83 83]|url=https://archive.org/details/settlingformorem0000gold/page/83}}</ref>
*'''Bogey:''' Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance is very important.<ref name="Essentials82">{{cite book|last=Lewicki|first=R. J.|title=Essentials of Negotiation|year=2001|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|location=New York|isbn=978-0-07-231285-0|page=82 |author2=D. M. Saunders |author3=J. W. Minton}}</ref> Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be traded for a major concession of actual importance.
*'''Calling a higher authority:''' To mitigate too far-reaching concessions, deescalate, or overcome [[negotiation deadlock|a deadlock situation]], one party makes the further negotiation process dependent on the decision of a decision maker, not present at the negotiation table.<ref>''Jung/Krebs'', p. 73.</ref>
*'''[[Chicken game|Chicken]]:''' Negotiators propose extreme measures often in the form of bluffs to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.
*'''Concession:''' One party offers up something with hope reaching or coming closer to an agreement.<ref>{{cite book | chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_13 | doi=10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_13 | chapter=Towards a Quantitative Concession-Based Classification Method of Negotiation Strategies | title=Agents in Principle, Agents in Practice | series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science | date=2011 | last1=Baarslag | first1=Tim | last2=Hindriks | first2=Koen | last3=Jonker | first3=Catholijn | volume=7047 | pages=143–158 | isbn=978-3-642-25043-9 }}</ref> 
*'''Defense in Depth:''' Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=246}}</ref> In other words, each time the offer goes to a decision-maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession to close the deal.
*'''[[Time limit|Deadlines]]:''' Give the other party a deadline, forcing them to make a decision. This method uses time to apply pressure on the other party. Deadlines given can be actual or artificial.
*'''Flinch:''' Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal. Common examples of flinching are gasping for air or a visible expression of surprise or shock. The flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously.<ref>{{cite web|last=Coburn|first=Calum|title=Neutralising Manipulative Negotiation Tactics|url=http://www.calumcoburn.co.uk/articles/negotiation-tactics/|publisher=Negotiation Training Solutions|access-date=1 October 2012}}</ref> The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gates|first=Steve|title=The Negotiation Book|year=2011|publisher=A John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Publication|location=United Kingdom|isbn=978-0-470-66491-9|page=245}}</ref> Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked".
*'''Good Guy/Bad Guy:''' Within the tactic of good guy/bad guy (synonyms are good cop/bad cop or black hat/white hat) oftentimes positive and unpleasant tasks are divided between two negotiators on the same negotiation side or unpleasant tasks or decisions are allocated to a (real or fictitious) outsider. The good guy supports the conclusion of the contract and emphasizes positive aspects of the negotiation (mutual interests). The bad guy criticizes negative aspects (opposing interests). The division of the two roles allows for more consistent behavior and credibility of the individual negotiators. As the good guy promotes the contract, he/she can build trust with the other side.<ref>''Jung/Krebs'', p. 102.</ref>
*'''Holding out for concession:''' Negotiators can choose avoiding giving concessions and hold out in the hope that the other side will concede before they do. This tough bargaining position can maximize the negotiators [[ex-post]] (actual) outcome.<ref name="Langlois">{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1080/03050620600837866 | doi=10.1080/03050620600837866 | title=Holding Out for Concession: The Quest for Gain in the Negotiation of International Agreements | date=2006 | last1=Langlois | first1=Jean-Pierre P. | last2=Langlois | first2=Catherine C. | journal=International Interactions | volume=32 | issue=3 | pages=261–293 | url-access=subscription }}</ref>
*'''[[Low-ball|Highball/Low-ball]]''' or '''Ambit claim:''' Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that is not achievable. The theory is that the extreme offer makes the other party reevaluate their opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement).<ref name="Essentials81">{{cite book|title=Essentials of Negotiation|last=Lewicki|first=R. J.|author2=D.M. Saunders|author3=J.W. Minton|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|year=2001|isbn=978-0-07-231285-0|location=New York|page=81}}</ref> Another advantage is that the party giving the extreme demand appears more flexible when they make concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time.
*'''The Nibble:''' Also known under the salami tactic or quivering quill, nibbling is the demand for proportionally small concessions that have not been discussed previously just before closing the deal.<ref name="Essentials82" /> This method takes advantage of the other party's desire to close by adding "just one more thing".
*'''Snow Job:''' Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that they have difficulty determining what information is important, and what is a diversion.<ref>{{cite book|last=Lewicki|first=R. J.|title=Essentials of Negotiation|year=2001|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|location=New York|isbn=978-0-07-231285-0|page=86 |author2=D. M. Saunders |author3=J. W. Minton}}</ref> Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert.
*'''Mirroring:''' When people get on well, the outcome of a negotiation is likely to be more positive. To create trust and rapport, a negotiator may mimic or mirror the opponent's behavior and repeat what they say. Mirroring refers to a person repeating the core content of what another person just said, or repeating a certain expression. It indicates attention to the subject of negotiation and acknowledges the other party's point or statement.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Vecchi | first1 = G. M. | last2 = Van Hasselt | first2 = V. B. | last3 = Romano | first3 = S. J. | year = 2005 | title = Crisis (hostage) negotiation: Current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict resolution | journal = Aggression and Violent Behavior | volume = 10 | issue = 5| pages = 533–551 | doi=10.1016/j.avb.2004.10.001}}</ref> Mirroring can help create trust and establish a relationship.
*'''Anchoring:''' Anchoring is the process of establishing a reference point first to guide the other person closer to your suggested price. It is often presented at the beginning of a negotiation to influence the rest of the negotiation. As an example, say you want to sell a car for 50,000 dollars. Now a customer walks in saying they want to buy a car. You say that you can sell the car for 65,000 dollars. Their counteroffer would probably be 50,000–55,000 dollars. This also works and vice versa for buying something. The idea here is that we are narrowing the other parties' expectations down or up.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-12-20|title=What is Anchoring in Negotiation?|url=https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/what-is-anchoring-in-negotiation/|access-date=2022-01-24|website=PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School|language=en-US}}</ref> To counter-anchoring, you should point out the fact that they are anchoring and say that they need to drive it down to an acceptable price.