Understanding Negotiation Styles and Tactics

This episode explores negotiation styles, highlighting the importance of understanding both distributive and integrative negotiation tactics. We discuss twelve specific tactics used in negotiations and provide strategies for recognising and countering them effectively while emphasising the value of relationships in the negotiation process. 

• Differentiation between distributive (positional) and integrative (interest-based) negotiation 
• Importance of building long-term relationships in negotiations 
• Understanding client negotiation styles 
• Overview of twelve key negotiation tactics 
• Strategies for recognising and countering negotiating tactics

Here are the twelve negotiation tactics covered:

1. Highball/Lowball Offers
2. Good Cop/Bad Cop
3. Nibbling
4. Silence
5. Time Pressure
6. Walking Away (Ultimatum)
7. Flinch
8. Bogey
9. The Reluctant Party
10. Cherry Picking
11. The Red Herring
12. Limited Authority

If you would like more information about the topics discussed, there is a more complete summary available in this PDF download.

I hope that you find it useful.

Chapters

• 0:00 Negotiation Tactics and Strategies
• 12:46 Negotiation Tactics and How to Counter
• 20:44 Dealing With Manipulative Negotiation Tactics

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:12

Hello again. I'm recording this at the beginning of February 2025, and the topic for this podcast has been driven by events that are going on internationally, and it made me think about the types of negotiation that people get into and also some of the tactics they use, and that's why I thought this would make a good subject for a podcast. So, whereas what's triggered this are things that are happening internationally, the same styles and techniques apply to really any kind of negotiation that people get into, and when you get into a sales environment, the chances are you will encounter these. I will pretty much guarantee it. So what I want to start with is just talking about the two types of negotiation, and this is how we characterize the main type. So the first one is known as distributive negotiation or positional negotiation, and I don't get too hung up on the term, but it's really just to understand what they actually mean. So this type is also known as a win-lose negotiation, and a way of thinking about this is that, basically, you're looking at a fixed amount of resource, whatever that might be, and you can think about it as a pie when we're visualizing it, and it has to be divided between the parties involved, and what each party is doing is basically maximizing their own share, and they're quite happy to do that at the expense of the other party or parties involved that at the expense of the other party or parties involved. So this could I mean. Examples of this might be negotiating the price on a car, a salary, a one-off contract, but the characteristics and the things to account for it gets very competitive. It's very focused on individual gains and really there's no consideration about the long-term relationship between the parties. So this is really very much a one-off deal and at least one of the parties involved just wants to get as much as they can out of it at the expense of the other. So this is the win-lose negotiation.

Speaker 1: 2:36

Now, I'm not in favor of that. My own preference is the following which is integrative negotiation or interest-based negotiation is another way of thinking of it. So this is the win-win negotiation. So, to use the same analogy, so thinking of a pie, it's basically where the aim is to find a solution that benefits everybody and basically expands the value of what is going to be shared. So it's not about just this pie, but it's about effectively coming up with a bigger pie that everyone can get more from. So the characteristics of this type of negotiation are collaboration, spending time to explore the interests of each party and trying to find a creative solution that meets the needs of everybody involved in the negotiation. So examples of this would include business partnerships, labor agreements, international treaties, and what you will see in the way that these negotiations are handled is that people will be cooperative, they're focused on mutual benefits and the aim is to build a long-term relationship.

Speaker 1: 3:50

So if you've listened to previous podcasts, if you've been on my training course, you'll know that one of the big things I tend to stress is the importance of building long-term relationships with people, even if what you're selling is effectively a one-off deal or feels like a one-off deal. Don't forget you always have the possibility of referrals. People know other people. If you do a good job with them, then you'll likely get referrals back, and referrals are great because they're very hot leads. So the reason for talking about this is partially about understanding your negotiation style and do you have a need to win. So are you going for a win-win when you're with a client, or are you going for a win-win when with a client, or are you going for a win-lose? But just as importantly, you need to understand where your client is coming from.

Speaker 1: 4:42

So you may well find that the client, the person that you're negotiating with, is one of these people who has to feel they've won in some way. So if you recognize that person, I'm going to go through some tactics in a moment as well that they're likely to use. But if you recognize that person, I'm going to go through some tactics in a moment as well that they're likely to use. But if you recognize that you're dealing with that sort of a person, then the trick really is to just build in a little bit of maneuvering room into the negotiation. So, for example, it might be price, so that you start with a price that is higher than would deliver a win-win for you, so that both parties win, but just allow them to have their little victory and knock you down a bit so that you still finish up with the margin that you need for it to be a good deal for you and your business. But also they feel that they've won and it's kind of egoic, it's quite immature in many ways, that style of negotiation the win lose, but unfortunately that is the nature of some of the people that you're going to be dealing with. So once you recognize who you're dealing with particularly if you've been negotiating with them for a while then this deal just won't close. You don't understand what's going on. You're coming at it from a win-win position, but they need to win, they need to feel they've got one over you in some way. Then just recognize that, look at that as a possible reason why this deal just won't close and go from there.

Speaker 1: 6:07

And I do know from early days when I started in selling. So it was the sort of period where you would take clients out for lunch, that sort of thing. I heard of one guy I never dealt with him, but it was a purchasing guy and he would never close a deal until a salesperson had taken him out for lunch. And you can argue the ethics of that, but that was the reality. And if you want to do business with those people, if you want to get these deals across the line and this is the kind of thing you really need to be thinking about so these are the types of negotiation. So what I'm going to do now is just quickly run through about a dozen different tactics and just talk about how you can recognize them. So, these tactics it's important to recognize what people are doing, because then you know how to counter them and how to just bring either bring the sale to a successful conclusion if that's getting the deal, or perhaps deciding to walk away from that client because some of these clients they're just going to want to win every time it will always be at your expense and you may decide that that's just not the kind of client you want. So this is just as important.

Speaker 1: 7:17

So the first one is the high ball, low ball offer. So the way you can recognize that is that one party will start with an extreme offer which is far above or below the expected range and the purpose of it is to anchor the negotiation and shift the perceived range of acceptable outcomes. So basically they might be pushing the price really low and then you negotiate off that really low price. Or conversely, you get really high and you negotiate off that. It's not quite the same as a price anchor, but it's similar in some ways and basically the way to spot it is that the initial offer will be unrealistic or completely unreasonable compared to what the normal market rates are or the norms are within the market. So if you're coming across that where they're throwing in, maybe it might be a price negotiation where they're coming in exceptionally low and then just recognize what they're doing.

Speaker 1: 8:20

The second one is good cop, bad cop, and the way to recognize that is that one negotiator will appear to be very aggressive or unyielding, while the other is very reasonable. So I think we're all familiar with good cop, bad cop and really the purpose of that is just to really emphasize what the good cop is saying, so that that seems reasonable, because obviously the comparison is against what the bad cop is saying. And it's quite easy. I think most of us would recognize that pretty easily. But just look for sudden shifts in tone or approach between the two people who are representing the same side. So if it's a potential client, then the two people are going to be behaving very differently. So that's good cop, bad cop. The third one is nibbling. So this is where you've almost reached an agreement and then the other party asks for additional small concessions. So what they're trying to do is to just get extra value from the deal while you're focused on finalizing the deal itself itself. So you're kind of in that mindset that it's done and dusted and then all of a sudden you're having to accommodate other concessions or some other thing that benefits the client. So that's again pretty easy to recognize, because new demands are introduced late in the process. So usually in negotiations and the way I teach negotiation is to get all of the demands, all of the requirements identified upfront and go from there.

Speaker 1: 10:02

Silence is another one. Now, this is actually quite a useful tactic when you're closing a deal as well. But the way it works simply is that one of the parties it might be you as the salesperson, or it might be the client they just remain silent once a proposal has been made or the counteroffer has been made. And the idea is really basic psychology. It just makes you feel very uncomfortable. Most people are really uncomfortable with silence and they'll tend to fill it. And, of course, if an offer has just been made and it's then silent and there's an old adage the first person to speak has just lost the deal or lost the advantage in the deal anyway. So just be aware of that and if that is going on, don't fall for it and just stick to your guns.

Speaker 1: 10:49

Time pressure is another one. It's number five, and that's where one part is creating a sense of urgency by imposing deadlines or by emphasizing scarcity. Now you probably recognize this as a sales tactic as well. So this is something that you can use to get a client over the line to make a decision. Now, again, I always come from the place of ethical selling, so I certainly would use that and I have used it, but it's where I know that the solution I'm offering is going to benefit the client and I recognize there's some hesitation there because it is a commitment and there are all sorts of reasons why there might be hesitation. So the time pressure part of negotiation is certainly something to use, but beware of it being used unethically.

Speaker 1: 11:42

And that would be where someone is being pushed into a rushed decision, and by rushed I mean that they haven't had the time. They need to just weigh up all the pros and cons and be happy with it. And this will depend a little bit on the personality type of the person you're dealing with. So, again, I use DISC as a model, because there's only four types of people, and there's certainly two of those do need time to really weigh things up. And if that's what you're dealing with, if you are dealing with one of the personality types that needs to weigh everything up, be comfortable, then it's important to respect that because, again we're coming back to a win-win type solution and you're looking at having a long-term relationship. If you feel you've been pressured into a decision, particularly when it doesn't always work out the way that you hoped, then clearly you're not going to feel like you want to continue to do business with that personal business or company. So that's the purpose of it.

Speaker 1: 12:46

When looking at it from a negotiation standpoint and again it's fairly obvious to recognize but there'll be frequent mentions of time constraints the offer is only good for today. To be honest, those kind of things I tend to walk away from. I tend to be quite impulsive and I am actually educating myself not to be because it doesn't always turn out well. Number six is walking away. So that's kind of the ultimatum. So the other party just threatens to walk away or break off the negotiation. And it's really there to apply pressure to either force you to reconsider your position so presumably there's some sort of an impasse has been reached in the negotiation or to just test your resolve, how committed you are to the offer you're making.

Speaker 1: 13:38

So and again recognizing it's pretty straightforward. They might use statements like this is my final offer. They might physically leave. So this comes back down to. If you're negotiating and your client or potential client is using that tactic, how badly do you want the business? Because, also, I find that when you're dealing with people like that it's not a good basis for a relationship, it's almost bullying, and to me that's not a good place to start a relationship when you've got that kind of thing going on. So again, I would question how much you want to, or you need to, do business with that particular client. Maybe you don't have a choice, I don't know.

Speaker 1: 14:23

Okay, seven is flinch. So this is a visible reaction. So it's a gasp or facial expression, something like that, or a comment just indicating shock or disbelief at your proposal. So it's really the purpose of it is to really make you doubt your own position and undermine you, and it's, again, pretty easy to recognize. So be aware of that one and again, I would assume I don't know you, obviously, but I would assume that if you're listening to this, you're, what you're putting in is what you feel is a fair offer, and then it comes back to your resolve and your commitment to doing a deal with that particular personal company. So this one, the bogey, I don't know how that comes across. Anyway, so the signs there is pretending a minor issue is of major importance to trade it for something of real value. So, again, it's just a way of gaining leverage by appearing flexible on something non-critical. You can recognize it because it will be emphasized very strongly but later it's given up quite easily. So, again, this is where really good qualification and the kind of negotiation tactics I teach come in very handy, because you should be able to eliminate those things pretty early on, so they can't be used as a negotiating technique. I can't even say it when it comes to finalising the deal.

Speaker 1: 15:57

Number nine is the reluctant party. So these are just where somebody is feigning disinterest or hesitation about closing the deal. So the truth is they are interested, but they are just trying to apply a bit of pressure to get better terms or to really get you more eager to finalize the agreement. So in doing so, to give something away, and again you'll get expressions like I'm not sure this is the right fit or there might be a lot of delays. So, again, if you do the kind of negotiation process I teach in the online course, this sort of thing you can eliminate pretty early on. Or if it does come up later, you've already got the answers to it.

Speaker 1: 16:43

Cherry picking is the 10th thing to look for, so selectively focusing on the most favorable terms of your offer while ignoring others. So what they're trying to do is to maximize the benefits of the offer without addressing points that are less favorable. So this is probably more of a tactic used by people who are selling rather than buying. So obviously this can be applied when you're buying things as well, but if they're constantly steering the conversation back to an advantage and ignoring disadvantages that their proposal has for you, then that's a warning sign, because I would suggest that they've recognized a red flag in there from their ability. It's somewhere. So it's a red flag against their ability to deliver the solution you're looking for, and they're basically trying to get around that by distracting you. So just be conscious of that. It's certainly not something I would encourage anybody to do if they're in the sales position, because it's look, you're setting yourself up for failure. You're going to, if somebody does go ahead and buy and there are serious issues with the solution, they're not going to come back. You're going to get a bad reputation and just going to make life a lot more difficult for yourself. So if you do that, don't.

Speaker 1: 18:05

The red herring is the next one, and this is where just irrelevant issues are introduced to distract from the main negotiation points. So again, this is there to divert attention, potentially gain concessions, and it will just come up as topics that are suddenly popping out of nowhere, that haven't been brought up before and appear to be completely irrelevant. And finally, limited authority that's the 12th tactic. So this is where they claim that they have to go and get approval from somebody else before they can make a group agreement and basically it's a shield, it's a way of not committing to the agreement. It may be a way of walking away from it without any, without conflict. They may well be perceiving a conflict there, so it'll be things like I just have to check with my boss. The important thing there is that again it comes back to your qualification process. Have you identified who the key players are? Who is the signing authority, the person who can sign off on the deal, and you really need to have them involved, certainly in the final conversation if it's involved multiple meetings.

Speaker 1: 19:18

So there are some tips to counter these tactics. So the first one is just stay calm and composed, don't get emotional about it. Just step back, recognize what's going on and just think through how you're going to deal with it. And just think through how you're going to deal with it. Be thoroughly prepared, so understand your priorities, their alternatives and be very clear about the other person's needs. So this is something that's really important to do right from the very start. Keep clarifying and clarifying to make sure you're both on the same page. Ask questions that's how we understand.

Speaker 1: 19:51

So anything that's ambiguous, get clarification on, get them to be specific that's really important and that will expose these tactics that are going on. If that's what's going on, document any agreements so that that will stop any last minute changes or the nibbling that I spoke about. And this is where I like to write things up after a meeting. I would always put them in the CRM, but I'd also write a summary and email that back to my client and just ask them to agree that that is what was discussed and agreed and ask if there is anything they feel that I've missed or they would like to add at that point. So if you keep things documented as you go through these discussions, it does make it much harder for people to throw in these little left field things that are designed to throw you off.

Speaker 1: 20:44

And then the other thing is just call out tactics, be polite but firmly, address any behavior that you feel is just manipulative. Polite but firmly address any behavior that you feel is just manipulative. And again, look, possibly it will blow the deal. Some people, as I've said, are very immature emotionally and they won't appreciate being called out. But do you really want them as a client? And it also makes it clear that you're being being respectful, but you're also going to stand your ground. You have your business responsibilities and you're going to respect those and you expect your client to treat you with the same courtesy and respect. So, um, I would definitely support that. So look these it's just a look at negotiations, the types of negotiation and the tactics. I've covered quite a lot there, but I hope you found it useful. And, yeah, I'll speak to you in the next podcast and you're always welcome to drop a line if you have a question or would like me to cover something else. Okay, bye for now.