9 manipulations in negotiations

[Brother]

In negotiations, manipulation is often not considered shameful. The main thing is victory. Therefore, it is important to know what tactics can be used against you. We do not call for using them, but everyone needs to remember about their existence and do everything to avoid pitfalls.

Here are the most curious tactics that manipulators use in negotiations. And if you want to learn more, sign up for our Profiling: Understanding Human Psychology program.

Double agent​

The manipulator convinces someone at the negotiating table to act in his best interest. Or asks to provide useful information that supposedly will benefit all participants in the process. The “victim” in this case acts on the side of the manipulator either unknowingly, under the influence of his skill, or deliberately, under pressure (including blackmail, threats).

"Invasion"​

Using this tactic, the manipulator invades the decision-making process of the opposite side. Separate techniques:

• Invade your personal space.
• Arrange a provocation while opponents are thinking.
• Talk about what the opposite side will not exactly understand.
• Move negotiations to small, inconvenient rooms.

Flinching​

When you name your price, the manipulator flinches, and so clearly that everyone notices it. He looks at you with disbelief, is silent and waits for another offer.

This tactic works because it makes you feel uncomfortable, think that social norms have been violated, the other side is offended. Many people are overwhelmed by this overt expression of emotion, so they find themselves knocked out of the saddle and are willing to bargain.

What if…​

If you do not talk about something directly, then you can leave a huge space for probing the soil or waste. Such a careful manner helps to find out the true motives of the opposite side and find weaknesses.

Manipulators also use this tactic to ignite opponents' imaginations and greed. Here are the starter words that usually start everything:

• What if…
• What about…
• Let's try…
• Suppose ...
• Imagine that ...

Food control​

Food influences our decisions in incredible ways. In a hungry state, we can make completely different decisions that we make when full. Manipulators are aware of this and are trying to seize power over food.

They invite you to specific places, order specific food and drinks. All this in order to weaken your mind, to reduce the ability to make the right decisions. Before getting what you want, they offer food and try to placate you. As a result, they get what they want.

It is recommended to come to such meetings well-fed so as not to depend on food.

Bluff​

The good old bluff was made for negotiation. Its essence is to tell your opponent something that will make an impression on him, but at the same time will not be entirely true (or even outright lie).

The manipulator must have an acting ability, act confidently and decisively. The simplest bluff is to say, “I have a better offer, so I'm not sure if I’m going to accept yours,” or “I have another client scheduled for the evening, after which I’ll decide whose offer to choose.”

This simple trick really works, because we don't know the truth: maybe a competitor will really make a better offer?

Deadline​

The manipulator sets a deadline for you and forces you to make a quick decision. Ask directly why such a rush and if at least something confuses you, refuse to cooperate with such a person.

The deadline plays on greed, on emotional tension. At the same time, it can be implied, and not be installed directly: the manipulator will subtly hint at the timing and in every possible way rush you.

"Big boss"​

This trick works if you are not familiar with the manipulator. He can say whatever he wants about himself, elevate himself to the skies and come up with any stories. Even in the information world, it is sometimes difficult to find out whether this is true or not.

The tactics can be seen by carefully observing the opponent: any doubts about the authenticity of the behavior can and should be regarded as manipulation.

Changes to standards​

The tactic is to find out what standards people are guided by when making decisions. What are the criteria? What are the ideals? This is the first step: find a standard.

Second step: change the standard. The manipulator begins to speak your language and use your values for negotiations, sometimes even declaring that he shares them. He intends to get close and act as a friend. For example, a real estate seller asks you to describe the ideal home and then try to sell something that no one has bought for a long time using your words and phrases.

Be critical and do not fall for the tricks of manipulators. We wish you good luck!

 

[Tomcat]

Why being friendly during negotiations is not always helpful​

It is believed that being friendly is important in order to be successful in negotiations - whether it is a big deal or a new job. Three scientists from Harvard Business School are ready to argue with this. In their article for the Harvard Business Review, they explain why a tough bargaining position is more beneficial in the long run.

People tend to believe that courtesy will open any door for them and allow them to make a deal on better terms. For example, the founder of the Harvard University negotiation program, Ronald Shapiro, writes about this in great detail. Research by his colleagues at Harvard Business School shows that this is not (entirely) the case.
More than 1,500 people took part in four experiments. The aim was to test how (un) friendly behavior during negotiations affects their outcome - economic and psychological. At the same time, the researchers note that all negotiations within the framework of the experiments were devoted to any one subject (while the discussion of several potential deals at once may have completely different results).

In the first experiment, scientists sent letters on behalf of an unknown person (a gender-neutral pseudonym was chosen - Riley Johnson) to people selling used phones through a free classifieds site. They prepared three versions of “warm” and three versions of “cold” messages - and in each of them they immediately asked for an 80% discount.

Most of the rejections came in response to "cold" messages, but "warm" messages were more often ignored. Given that an explicit “no,” as opposed to silence, is some kind of feedback, the study authors believe that coldness was a more winning strategy than friendliness in this experiment.
Counter offers were divided between "warm" and "cold" messages approximately equally.

But in response to "cold" messages, sellers offered a larger discount than in response to "warm" ones.

After receiving a response from the seller, the scientists wrote the answer on behalf of Riley: they say, I'm sorry, I already bought a phone elsewhere, and they turned off the communication. But in the next experiment, they followed the progress of negotiations from the first proposal to the deal.
The participants were divided into sellers and buyers - this time bowls were the subject of bargaining. Customers were given blanks of "warm" and "cold" messages and asked to adhere to the appropriate style.

As a result “Warm” negotiators, on average, paid 15% more than “cold” ones.

The analysis of the texts showed that the sellers believed that the more friendly the buyer, the more they can get from him. True, they didn't like the dragging out of the friendly negotiations, and they seemed to feel guilty about the “warm” customers.

The authors do not at all urge everyone to be rude and impudent, and also note that research needs to be continued, introducing additional factors (gender / gender of negotiators, different terms of transactions, a change in tone during negotiations). However, they believe that their findings can make the positions of the contracting parties more informed.