Summary: Putting off the decision to have more time for consideration.
One of the tactics that can keep the door open in a negotiation is: “I’ll Think About It and Get Back to You Later.”
Example
A man is interested in a buying dining room set from his neighbor. The seller says her price is $1,500. The buyer responds, “I’ll Think About It and Get Back to You Later.”
Summary: Bringing up information unrelated to the negotiation issues.
Some counterparts specialize in inserting a tangent, or side issue, into a negotiation that has absolutely nothing to do with the negotiation being discussed.
Example
A manager is discussing with an employee the importance of coming to work on time. In the middle of the discussion, the employee protests, “Other employees come into work late, and you do not say anything to them.” This is an example of Launching a Tangent to deflect attention from the real issue: this employee’s continual tardiness.
Summary: Repeatedly stating a position and refusing to look at options.
One of the most difficult negotiators to deal with is the unilateral thinker who can see only one possible outcome to a negotiation. This negotiator’s attitude is, “My way or the highway.”
Example
An airline passenger is irate because the first-class reservation she thought was confirmed for her flight is not in the airline’s system and no other first-class seats are available. To every option the reservations specialist suggests, the woman reiterates, “My reservation is in the system. You have to find my seat.”
Summary: Actively listening to a counterpart and empathizing with his feelings.
A counterpart who feels you do not understand his feelings, needs, or goals may build up a defensive wall. Breaking through that wall could make the negotiation take two or three times as long—or you might not succeed in breaking through the wall at all. Sometimes you are better off letting go of the facts in a negotiation and focusing on the emotions behind the facts. A counterpart who believes you are really listening to his needs and goals and understand how he feels is more willing to cooperate with you.
Example
We were hired by a school district to resolve a dispute it was having with some parents. The dispute revolved around the fact that a group of deaf preschoolers was left unsupervised on a playground. The preschoolers’ parents were angry about the lack of supervision. They were especially angry because they felt that everyone who represented the school district was busy documenting facts to “play it safe,” and no one really cared about the parents’ concerns. We began to facilitate the negotiation by listening to the parents express their concerns for nearly two hours. Then our first words to them were, “We have small children, too, and we can understand why you are upset.” The parents responded, “We would not have made such a case out of this situation if someone had listened to us as you just did.”
Summary: Asking a counterpart what he would do if the position were reversed.
If your counterpart asks for something that is totally unreasonable or does not make good business sense to you, a great question to ask is, “How would you justify agreeing to such a position If You Were in My Shoes?”
Example
Two companies were in serious talks regarding a merger. Company A wanted Company B to agree to the following deal point: If the news of the merger became public and another merger bid was generated from a third company, B would pay A $1 million if the original merger failed to happen. When the president of A proposed this deal point, the president of B asked this great question: “If You Were in My Shoes, how would you justify agreeing to that position?” What usually happens when this tactic is used is that the counterpart who is the target of the tactic has to pause and think how he would justify his position. In the example above, if the president of A paused for a long time or avoided the question altogether, the president of B could have pointed out, “I’m having the same challenge figuring out how this deal works for me.”
Summary: Telling a counterpart to go ahead and act on a “threat” or “challenge” she has issued.
Once in a while, one party in a negotiation may say something outrageous in the belief that his counterpart does not have enough information to challenge him. The appropriate tactic in this situation is to simply call the first party’s bluff.
Example
A home seller tells a potential buyer, “We have already had an offer to buy this house at a price higher than yours.” The buyer calls the seller’s bluff, asking, “Why didn’t you sell your house to the buyer with the higher offer?” This is a great question, since it will probably help Uncover the Real Reason the home seller is still negotiating.
A second common example is a slight variation. A person buying a product might say, “I don’t even need your product.” Once again, the appropriate question is, “If you do not need my product, why are you even taking the time to talk with me?”
Counter
You do not need a counter to this tactic if you are negotiating honestly and providing full disclosure. In the event that a counterpart tries Calling Your Bluff with a good question, simply reply, “That’s a great question,” and give the honest reason why you are negotiating with him.
Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?
Summary: Asking a question to redirect the conversation.
It may not be in your best interest to answer a counterpart’s question if you do not have enough information to make an educated or appropriate response. In those situations, Deflecting an Answer with a Great Question is appropriate.
Example
A salesperson asks you, “If I could get this model in blue, your favorite color, would you be willing to purchase the unit today?” You respond by stating, “How long would it take you to locate a blue model and have it delivered?” You have not made a commitment, and at the same time you have asked a great question, which could yield information important to your purchasing decision. When negotiating to buy something, you can almost always make more gains before committing to buy than afterward.
Summary: Apologizing for making a mistake or failing to meet all agreements.
The ability to say, “I am sorry,” or, “I made a mistake,” is a strength, not a weakness. When you are humble, your counterpart finds it easier to like you and work with you to create a win-win outcome.
Example
A printing sales representative receives a large order from a client. The client’s order is supposed to be completed by a specific date, but something happens at the printing plant and the delivery is late. The client is disappointed and is not planning to use the same printing company in the future. But the sales representative makes a special trip to the client’s company to personally apologize for the tardiness of the delivery. The sales representative’s obviously sincere apology convinces the client to continue to utilize the printing company’s services.
Counter
In this situation, the damage has been done. It would be appropriate for the client to accept the sales representative’s apology and then put a Safeguard in place to guide the future relationship. For example, “If you are ever late on one of my jobs again, I will not accept delivery.” Safeguards are negotiated so that remedies are in place in case the problem ever recurs in the relationship. The client could also negotiate an add-on, or something extra, for the inconvenience.
Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?
Summary: Forcing a counterpart to let go of past issues and look at what’s ahead.
Sometimes counterparts get into conflict and start blaming each other for negative things that have happened in the past. (This is as common in marriage as it is in long-term business relationships!) Getting stuck in the past can make it very difficult to create a win-win outcome, since all the negotiators are busy blaming their counterparts or defending themselves. Under these circumstances, it may be in your best interest to Focus on the Future.
Example
A manager is counseling an employee about poor performance on the job. Each time the manager brings up an example of the employee’s poor performance, the employee blames the specific problem on the manager or another department. Since difficult employees will defend their wrongful actions to their death, it is helpful to Focus on the Future. It would be appropriate for the manager to ask the difficult employee, “What will it take to have you produce a quality product next week?” Even the most difficult employees will help define the future.
Counter
If you are put in this situation and, for some reason, do not want to be held completely accountable for the results of the negotiation, the appropriate counter is the tactic of The Safeguard. In the example above, the employee might reply, “I will do what I can to produce a quality product next week, but if I do not get all the information and cooperation I need from other departments, I may not be able to accomplish that goal.”
Have you used or encountered this tactic in your negotiations? If so, how’d it go?
Summary: Attempting to upsell a counterpart by offering extras.
One of the challenges everyone faces is the aggressive salesperson who pushes additional products or services. The perfect model of this tactic is the fast-food cashier who always asks, “Would you like fries and a drink with your double cheeseburger?” and attempts to upsell you on the Meal Deal.
Example
Sue is buying a new laptop and the salesperson says, “You really should purchase the extended warranty. If anything goes wrong with this laptop, we will fix it free of charge.” The salesperson convinces Sue to buy the extended warranty with the argument, “You just never know.”
Some people like extended warranties; others feel such warranties are a waste of money. Some individuals have purchased the warranties and, when the product has malfunctioned, have been unable to find the paperwork, so the retail chain would not honor the warranty anyway.
The Negotiating Tactic of the Week gives you an insider's look at hundreds of strategies and tactics, every week.
