Negotiations: Tactics that may surprise you
Posted By JoAnne S. Jennings, Oct 30, 2011
Although it has a specific purpose, the bargaining table is still a social venue, and social norms and assumptions still influence what happens there. In Principles of Influence in Negotiation, 87 Marq. L. Rev. 829 (2004), Chris Guthrie explores how attorneys who understand these social influence principles can employ them to achieve successful outcomes in negotiations. This blog post will provide a brief introduction to two of the principles discussed in Guthrie’s article: “reciprocity” and “commitment and consistency.”
Reciprocity
“One good turn deserves another” is more than a quaint saying; it is a norm so embedded in our psyches that most people who receive a Christmas card will send one in return – even if they have never met the sender. Id at 834. Guthrie suggests two concrete ways in which the savvy negotiator can use this social norm to their advantage:
- Concede something. While this may sound counter-intuitive, the very act of making a concession can create a social obligation for your counterpart to respond in kind. Id.
- Ask for a big concession you know will be rejected, and then ask for a smaller concession. This is the true “ninja” technique. Because your counterpart rejected your first request, your second, smaller request will actually be taken as a concession on your part. Because your counterpart now has an obligation to respond in kind, you are both closer to a deal. Id.
Commitment and consistency
In his unsuccessful campaign for president in 2004, John Kerry found himself repeatedly responding to accusations he “flip-flopped” on a variety of issues, from the death penalty to the use of the strategic oil reserves. Americans, it seems, don’t like leaders who change their minds.
Individuals in general also don’t like to be seen as people who change our minds. Once we have established a viewpoint, we feel pressured to act in ways that are consistent with that viewpoint. The “drive carefully” study provides a particularly memorable example: homeowners who previously consented to a small, “Be a safe driver” sign in their yards were more than four times more likely than others to agree to post a new, “Drive Carefully,” sign – even though the new sign was so huge it would “almost completely obscure the view of the house from the street.” Id at 833. That is pretty serious commitment.
So how can attorneys put this principle to good use in negotiations? Guthrie suggests asking for small commitments early in the negotiations process. As the discussion continues, you can return to the same issue and ask for similar but more substantial commitments. Your counterpart may feel pressured to act in ways that are consistent with earlier commitments. Id.
Should you employ these strategies in your next negotiation? Only you can be the judge of whether you are comfortable doing so. In some contexts, using such strategies may be ethically questionable. In others, such strategies may be appropriate, useful, and even expected! Whether you use them or not, however, you are always better prepared when you know them, can recognize them, and understand their power.