Threats and blackmail: dirty tricks that your interlocutors can use in negotiations

The publishing house "MIF" published the book "The Harvard Method of Negotiation. How to always get your way. In it, experts from Harvard University talk about the principled negotiation method, which helps to avoid manipulations on the part of the interlocutors, quickly navigate in case of their non-standard behavior and always achieve desired.

This method is universal and is suitable for resolving conflicts with friends, discussing family plans, or talking about a salary increase with superiors.

We publish an excerpt from the third chapter on what to do if during the negotiations the interlocutor resorts to deliberate deceit, psychological warfare and positional pressure. You will learn how to use principled negotiation tactics to counter such tricks.

---

Deliberate deception

The most common form of dirty tricks is misrepresenting facts or intentions, or creating a false impression of one's own authority.

Fake facts. The oldest form of negotiation ploy is deliberately

false statements: “This car has only traveled five thousand miles. It belonged to an old lady from Pasadena who never went faster than thirty-five miles an hour." The danger of accepting such false statements on faith is very high. What can be done? Separate the person from the problem.

Until you have a good reason to trust someone, trust no one.

This does not mean that you should call your opponent a liar. Just try to take the negotiations in a different direction, not related to issues of trust. Don't let opponents see your doubts as an attack on them personally. No salesperson will give you a watch or a car just in exchange for saying you have money in the bank. In the same way as the seller checks your ability to pay (“since so many divorced deceivers that no one can be trusted"), you can do the same for statements by another sides. The practice of verifying factual claims reduces the likelihood deceit.

Blurred powers. Opponents can make you believe that they, like you, are authorized to do certain things, when in reality this may not be the case at all. After they have pressed you vigorously and you have worked out together what seems to you a firm agreement, they say they must get someone else's approval. This technique allows them to "take a second bite of the apple."

Such a situation is very unpleasant. If only you have the authority to make concessions, only you will make them.

Don't assume that your adversary is fully empowered just because he is negotiating with you. insurance inspector, advocate or the seller may give you the impression that he can make concessions in response to some flexibility on your part. And later you will find that the decision you made is final, the other side is considered as the basis for further negotiations.

Before proceeding with mutual concessions, you must find out the powers of the other side.

And your desire will be absolutely legal. “Tell me, what powers do you have in the framework of our negotiations?” If the answer is ambiguous or evasive, it makes sense for you to talk to person with real authority, or make it clear to your opponents that you reserve the same right to revise any clauses agreements.

If your opponents unexpectedly declare that the agreement reached, which you accept as final, they consider as the basis for further negotiations, insist on reciprocity. "Fine. We will regard this document as a joint draft, which does not obligate anyone to anything. You will consult with your management, and I will weigh everything again. If I want to make any changes, I will let you know tomorrow.” You can also say something like this: “If your management approves this draft tomorrow, I will sign it. Otherwise, each of us will have the right to propose our own changes.”

Questionable intentions. When it comes to possible misinterpretation of the other party's intention to comply with an accepted agreement, you have the right to include special terms in the agreement itself.

Suppose you are a lawyer representing your wife in a divorce case. Your client does not believe that her husband will pay alimony on the child, although he agrees to it. The time and effort spent on litigation makes a woman stop her futile efforts. What can be done in such a situation? Make the problem obvious and use the right to challenge the decision to obtain guarantees. You can say to the husband's lawyer, “Look, my client is afraid that your client just won't pay child support. Instead of discussing monthly payments, maybe it makes more sense to talk about allocation of its share in the form of a house? The husband's lawyer may respond, “My client is absolutely trustworthy. Let's make a written agreement that he will pay child support on a regular basis." To which you, in turn, can object: “This is not about trust. Are you sure that your client will pay? “Of course!” - "One hundred percent?" "Yes, I'm 100% sure of him." “Then you won’t object to the conditional agreement. Let's write that if for some unforeseen reason, which you estimate as zero probability, your client misses two payments, my client receives her share in the form of a house (minus, of course, the amount that your client has already paid in the form of alimony) and your client is completely released from the obligation to pay alimony". It will be difficult for the husband's lawyer to object to such a proposal.

Incomplete sincerity cannot be regarded as deceit. Deliberate deception about facts or intentions is very different from the lack of sincerity of negotiators. Negotiations rarely require absolute candor from the participants. To the question "What is the maximum price you could pay?" the best answer would be: “Let us not expose each other to the temptation of deceit. If you think that an agreement is not possible and that we are wasting our time, it makes sense to contact third partyworthy of our trust. I think this way we will be able to find ways to mutual agreement.” Thus, you will not have to disclose information that you consider confidential and not subject to disclosure.

psychological warfare

Such tactics are aimed at making you feel uncomfortable and feel a subconscious desire to quickly end the negotiations.

Stressful situation. A lot has already been written about the physical conditions of the negotiations. You must be sensible about matters such as the location of the negotiations, as the territory may be yours, your opponents or neutral. Paradoxically, sometimes it is more profitable to agree to negotiate on the territory of the other side. There your opponents will relax and be more open to your suggestions. If necessary, it will be easier for you to leave the negotiations. However, if you are giving the other party the freedom to choose where to negotiate, take that choice very seriously. Do not underestimate the degree of influence of this important factor.

Analyze if you are under stress, and if so, why. If the room is too noisy, if it is too hot or too cold, if there is no place for a confidential conversation with colleagues, one can conclude that the situation was deliberately organized in such a way that you wanted to end the negotiations as quickly as possible and even make certain concessions, just so as not to drag out process.

If the physical environment of the negotiation affects you negatively, feel free to say so.

Offer to change chairs, arrange break or transfer the negotiations to another place and to another time. Your task is to identify the problem, discuss it with the other party, and then come to a joint decision regarding more acceptable physical circumstances. This discussion should be conducted on an objective and principled basis.

Personal attacks. In addition to the influence of the physical environment, you need to consider verbal and non-verbal communication that makes you feel uncomfortable. The opponent may make a remark about your appearance or clothing. “Looks like you haven't slept all night. Doesn't it matter how things are going?" Attacks can be made on your status - if the enemy makes you wait for the start of negotiations, and then interrupts them to resolve some other issues. You may be presented as ignorant. They may refuse to listen and force you to repeat yourself. The adversary may knowingly not meet your eyes. (Simple experiments with students have shown how powerful this technique is. Moreover, the subjects did not understand the nature of their sensations.)

In any case, early recognition of tactics will help you reduce, if not nullify, their impact. Make it obvious and you won't have to deal with the consequences.

Good guy bad guy game. This is another form of psychological pressure based on deception. We often see this technique in old police officers. films. The first policeman threatens the suspect with terrible punishments, directs a bright lamp at him and intimidates him in every possible way. Then he takes a break and leaves the room. And then the “good” guy comes into play. He treats the suspect to a cigarette, turns off the lamp, and apologizes for the first cop. He says that he would like to rein in the rude man, but he cannot do this without the help of the suspect. As a result, the suspect lays out everything he knows to the second policeman.

Negotiations can lead to a similar situation. Two representatives of the same party arrange quarrel. One stands firm: "These books cost eight thousand dollars and not a cent less!" His partner looks embarrassed and tries to reason with his colleague: “Look, Frank, you are being unreasonable. After all, these books are two years old, even if they are in good condition.” Turning to the representative of the other side, this person asks: “Can you pay seven and a half thousand?” The concession is small, but it immediately looks like a personal favor.

You have come across a typical example psychological pressure. If you recognize the situation in time, you will not be deceived. When the "good" guy proposes to you, ask him the same question as the "bad" guy: "I appreciate that you are trying to be realistic, but I would like to understand why you consider this price fair. What is your principle? I am ready to pay eight thousand if you convince me that this price is fair.

Threats. Threats are one of the most nasty tactics used in negotiations. Threatening seems very easy, much easier than making offers. All it takes is a few words. If this tactic works, you won't have to fight anymore. But threats almost always lead to retaliatory threats. Such an increase in tension can destroy the negotiations and finally spoil the relationship between the participants.

Threats are a form of pressure. The pressure often backfires: an agreement is not reached and tensions escalate. Instead of making it easier for the other party decision makingthreats create new challenges. In response to outside pressure, a union, committee, company, or government may choose not to negotiate at all. Moderates and hawks unite in the face of a common threat, that is, an illegal attempt to coerce certain actions. Instead of asking, “Should we make such a decision?” participants begin to decide the question: “Should we submit to external pressure?”

Experienced negotiators rarely resort to threats. They don't need it. There are always other ways to convey any information to your opponent. You can emphasize the consequences of the actions of the other party, assume what will happen regardless of your will.

Warnings are always more effective than threats. In addition, they do not generate retaliatory threats.

“If we do not reach an agreement, it seems to me that the media will simply tear us to pieces. With such high public interest, I see no way to legally hide this information. And you?"

To be effective, threats must be clearly articulated and credible. Sometimes you can interfere with the process negotiations. You can ignore threats, you can consider these words spoken in the heat of the moment, without proper authority, or just by accident. You can even take a certain risk and acknowledge them. One of the authors of this book was an intermediary in the negotiations of a coal company with its workers. The firm received many threats and bomb reports. The number of such calls dropped sharply when the secretary began to answer callers: “Your call is being recorded. What number are you calling from?

Sometimes threats can be turned to your advantage. The union may say to the press: "The management of the company is so weak that they are already resorting to threats." But we believe that the best response to threats is calm adherence to principles. “We have prepared a number of response steps that will allow us to counter the threats of the company's management. However, we have postponed the response, hoping for a more constructive approach and mutual understanding.” “I am negotiating on a specific issue. My reputation does not allow me to respond to threats."

Positional pressure

This type of pressure is aimed at creating a situation in which only one side makes concessions.

Refusal to negotiate. When in November 1979 in Tehran they were taken into hostages diplomats and employees of the American embassy, ​​the Iranian government stated its demands and refused to negotiate. Lawyers often do the same when they say to their opponents, "I'll see you in court." What can be done when the other side refuses to negotiate? First, consider this tactic as a possible ploy. The other side may simply be trying to use their participation in the negotiations as a means to secure certain material concessions. A variant of this ploy is to set some preconditions for participation in the negotiations.

Second, you should discuss the other side's refusal to negotiate. Communicate either directly or through third parties. Do not attack the enemy, try to reveal the essence of his interest in terminating the negotiations. Maybe he is worried about lowering his status in connection with negotiations with you? Maybe he is afraid of looking too "soft" in someone's eyes? Maybe it seems to him that the negotiations will destroy some kind of internal alliance? Or maybe he just does not believe that an agreement between you is possible?

Consider various options, such as negotiating through third parties, exchanging letters, or engaging private parties, such as journalists, to discuss the topic of negotiations […].

Finally, insist on using objective principles. Isn't that what your opponents want by refusing to negotiate? Maybe they need you to set preconditions too? Perhaps they want you to refuse negotiations too? What principles do they follow in this situation?

Excessive requirements. Negotiators often start with excessively high or low demands. For example, for your house, which costs 200 thousand dollars, they can offer only 75 thousand. The purpose of this tactic is to underestimate your expectations. The adversary expects an extreme starting position to achieve a more favorable end result, since the parties are always trying to smooth out the differences that exist between them. This approach also has its downside.

The extreme requirement, which seems absolutely impossible to all participants, reduces the level of trust between the parties.

And that could kill the deal. If you are offered too little, you will think that it is better not to contact such people at all.

In this case, it makes sense to draw the attention of the enemy to the tactics he uses. Ask for a fair assessment of the position he has taken before its consequences become disastrous.

Escalation of requirements. A negotiator can significantly overestimate his demands, despite the concessions made to him. He may again raise issues that you thought had already been resolved. The advantages of such tactics lie in downplaying the significance of the concessions made and in psychological pressure on the enemy in order to force him to strive for an early conclusion of negotiations.

The Prime Minister of Malta used this tactic in negotiations with Great Britain in 1971. It was about paying for the deployment of naval and air bases on the island. Every time the British believed that an agreement had already been reached, he said: "Yes, we agreed, but there was one more small problem." And the small problem resulted in an extra £10 million, guaranteed jobs for dock workers and other workers for the duration of the contract.

Once you recognize this tactic, bring it to the attention of your opponent, and then take a break to see if you are ready to continue negotiations in this vein. This will allow you to keep a cool head and realize the seriousness of the actions of the other side. In any case, insist on using objective principles. When you return, the enemy, who is interested in reaching an agreement, will take you more seriously.

Blackmail. This tactic was described by Thomas Schelling using the example of two trucks loaded with dynamite approaching each other on a one-way road. The question is who must give way so that there is no collision. As the trucks approach, one of the drivers rips off the steering wheel and throws it out the window. The other is faced with a choice: face and explode or drive off the road into a ditch. This is an example of extreme tactics aimed at the impossibility of concessions. Paradoxically, by weakening control over the situation, you strengthen your own position.

During negotiations on labor agreements and in international negotiations, such tactics are extremely widespread. The chairman of the union makes an impassioned speech to his constituents, claiming that he will never agree to a wage increase of less than 15 percent. Because he risks losing face and voter confidence if he settles for less, he will be exceptionally tenacious in his initial position.

However, this tactic does not always bring results. you can recognize bluff the other side and force the enemy to make concessions, which he will then have to explain to his leadership or voters.

Like threats, these tactics rely heavily on communication. If the driver of another truck does not see that the steering wheel is flying out of the window, or thinks that there is another one in the car control mechanism, throwing away the steering wheel will turn out to be an absolutely senseless act, since it will not take its due actions. The task of avoiding a collision will fall on the shoulders of both drivers.

In response to such tactics, you must be prepared to break off negotiations.

You can interpret it in your own way in order to weaken the position taken by the other side. “Okay, I understand you. You tell the newspapers that your goal is to get $200,000 for the house. Well, we all have our own point of view. Do you want to know mine?" You can approach it in a different way: turn everything into a joke and not perceive seriously.

You can also resist such tactics on the basis of an objective principle: “Okay, Bob, I understand that you made this statement publicly. But my principle is to never give in to pressure. I only listen to common sense. Let's talk about the core of the problem." Whatever you do, never do blackmail central issue in the negotiations. Shift the focus to make it easier for the other side to back off.

Tough partner. Perhaps the most common tactic used in negotiations to ignore the other side's requests is the participant's statement that he personally has nothing against it, but he has a tough partner who does not allow him to go to concessions. “Your request is absolutely reasonable, and I understand you perfectly. But my wife would never agree to that.”

Such tactics need to be able to recognize in time. Instead of discussing issues with this participant, try to get their agreement with an objective principle (preferably in writing), and then, if possible, talk directly to the hard partner."

Conscious delays. Very often, one side tries to delay the decision until the most advantageous moment for it. Negotiations on labor agreements are often delayed before the start of the strike is only a few hours away. Trade union leaders expect that the psychological pressure of the approaching deadline will make the management of the enterprise more accommodating. Unfortunately, such calculations are not always justified and the strike begins at the appointed time. And after that, the management of the enterprise begins to wait for a more favorable moment - for example, when the trade union runs out of funds. Waiting for the right time is a very costly game.

You must make the delay tactics obvious and discuss them.

Also, consider creating a fake opportunity for the other side. If you are a representative of a company negotiating a merger with another firm, open negotiations with a third company by giving the impression that you are considering more than one offer. Look for objective conditions that could be used in determining the timing - for example, the date of payment taxes, the annual meeting of shareholders, the expiration of the contract, or the end of the legislative session.

"Agree or leave." There is nothing reprehensible and absolutely unacceptable in confrontation with the enemy. In fact, most American businessmen operate in this way. When you walk into a store and see that a can of beans costs 75 cents, you don't try to negotiate with the supermarket manager. This is an efficient way of doing business, but it is not meant to be negotiated. It does not include interactive decision making.

After lengthy negotiations, you may well say to the other side: "Agree or leave", only you need to do this in a more polite form.

As an alternative to recognizing this tactic and discussing it, we can offer its initial ignorance. Continue the conversation as if you didn't hear anything, or change the subject, for example, offer other solutions. If you decide to consciously use this tactic, let the enemy understand what he loses if the impossibility of reaching an agreement, and then try to change the situation in such a way that the enemy can get out of it without losing face. After the management of the plant makes its final offer, the union can say, “A $169 raise was your last suggestion before we even discussed our overall productivity efforts enterprises".

Don't be a victim

It is often very difficult to decide how to negotiate. People define tactics very differently. Ask yourself if this is how you would negotiate with a family member or close friend? Wouldn't you be ashamed if a full account of what you said or did appeared in the papers? Which literary hero is more suitable for your actions - a hero or villain? These questions will help you become more aware of your own inner values.

You can decide for yourself whether to use tactics that, if used against you, will seem vicious and intolerant.

At the start of a negotiation, it makes sense to say, “Look, I know this is going to sound a little weird, but I would like to know the rules we're going to play by. Do we want to reach a reasonable agreement together as quickly and effortlessly as possible? Or will we defend our initially taken positions until the end, until the most stubborn one wins? Whatever you do, you must be prepared to play dirty. You can be as hard as your opponents, even harder. It is much easier to uphold principles than illegal and unethical tactics. Don't be a victim.

The Harvard Method of Negotiation is a book for those who want to learn how to direct a conversation in the right direction, do not fall for the tricks of dishonest interlocutors and always achieve from negotiations desired.

Buy a book