This document provides strategies for dealing with difficult behaviors that may arise during negotiations. It suggests remaining calm and focusing on interests rather than positions. When faced with aggressive tactics, the strategies recommend reframing the behavior, allowing the other party to save face, discussing the negotiation process diplomatically, or changing representatives. As a last resort, one can pursue alternative options to the negotiation. The overall approach is to understand the motivations behind behaviors, de-escalate tensions, and find cooperative solutions.

1. Ignite Communications http://www.ignitecommunications.co 1
Dealing with Difficult Negotiation Behavior
"People who fight with fire usually end up with ashes." -Abigail Van Buren
"When anger comes, wisdom goes." -Hindi Proverb
Your counterpart’s behavior What you might do … Example of what you might say…
Asserts position forcefully ▪ Neither reject it nor accept it
▪ Look for the interests behind it,
identify the principles that it reflects,
and think about ways to improve it
▪ Treat it as just one possible option
▪ Why do you need to ...
▪ How will your proposal meet the interests/needs
of (other stakeholders...)
▪ What is the principle or the precedent that
supports this proposal?
▪ How could you satisfy the interests of … that
this would be a fair arrangement?
Example:
I hear that is your position. Given how far that
seems below the market price, help me
understand what’s motivating it. Are you
experiencing
a serious cash flow crisis?
▪ This is certainly one option. I think we’ll get a
lot further brainstorming options likely to be
acceptable and attractive to both of us. What
if we were to . . . ?
Makes extremely high (or low)
offer
▪ Ignore it
▪ Make an aggressive counteroffer,
then propose moderation. The risk
with this approach is the possibility
that both parties will become
entrenched and reach an impasse.
Mitigate risk by focusing on
working together towards common
goal.
▪ Inform them that their offer is not
even a basis for starting the
discussion, followed by information
regarding your own perspective and
a candid invitation to reopen
negotiations from a very different
starting point. Give them time to
moderate offer without losing face
▪ “Judging by your offer, I think we might be
looking at this deal in very different ways. Let’s
try to bridge that gap by discussing…”
▪ “Well, based on your offer, which was
unexpected, it looks like we have a lot of
work ahead of us. From our perspective, a fair
price would be closer to $X [your
counter-anchor]. I will explain to you how we are
valuing this deal, but it appears to me that if we
are to reach any agreement, we will both have to
work together to make it happen.”
▪ Let’s return to the bargaining table in a day or a
week, after “having figured out a way to make
this happen,” “having re-crunched the
numbers,” or “having fought it out with our
constituents.”

2. Ignite Communications http://www.ignitecommunications.co 2
Criticizes your ideas and your
proposal
▪ Don't defend your ideas, but rather
invite advice from your counterpart
▪ Ask for the other party's specific
feedback on what they think is
wrong with your proposal and invite
them to improve it.
Examine the other party's negative
judgments to find out the underlying
interests and use them to improve your
proposal
▪ What would you do if you were in my place?
How would you handle this situation?
▪ What concerns would this proposal fail to
address? How can we tweak it to make it
work?
Attacks you personally ▪ Resist the temptation to defend
yourself or attack them back
▪ Listen to them and allow them to let
off steam
▪ Recast their attack on you as an
attack on the problem
▪ When you say this proposal shows that we
don't care about (for example) staff needs, I
hear your concern about the staff.
I want you to know that we share this concern –
they are our employees and we want to reach
this agreement so that they can start getting
these new benefits.
What can we both do now to reach an agreement
as quickly as possible?
Gives ultimatum or threat ▪ Ignore the threat, giving your
counterpart the opportunity to
retreat and save face if the threat was
made out of frustration, ignorance,
or the desire to save face
▪ Neutralize any additional threats
they may be tempted to make.
Voice any concerns they may have
for them
▪ If you don’t find the threat to be
credible – let them know, but leave
room for them to save face. It helps
if you can give them a story to
tell themselves—and to others who
might question their decision to
back down.
▪ “I can understand your frustration. We both
know there is a deal to be made, and yet we can’t
seem to find it. Can you help me better
understand your perspective? Why do you think
we’re not there yet?”
▪ “We understand that corporate
politics and other institutional hurdles
sometimes make it difficult to make
even reasonable changes to a deal this late in the
game. But we would like to
work with you to figure out ways to make this
happen.
Lies ▪ Was it really a lie - is it possible that
your counterpart does not even know
that what he said was untrue?
▪ If you would like to continue the
negotiation, signal that you are
aware of the lie, while also giving the
other side an opportunity to save
face.
▪ “You mentioned that the cost of the materials is
X. We work closely with a number of suppliers
and are certain that the cost is Y. Perhaps you are
working with old data or the prices for different
parts got mixed up. Let’s try to be more careful
about facts and figures as we go forward with this
deal.”

3. Ignite Communications http://www.ignitecommunications.co 3
Is angry ▪ Seek to understand why the other
party is upset.
▪ Give voice to your counterpart’s
anger. Exercise some active
listening.
Responses like “Getting angry will
get us nowhere,” or, “We’re not
going to sit here and listen to you
shout,” or, “It’s in everyone’s best
interest if you calm down” are likely
to make your counterpart angrier
▪ Help your counterpart focus on his
true underlying interests
▪ “I can see that you’re angry, and I want to
understand why that is. Tell me what’s on your
mind.”
▪ “What would you like to see happen now?”
“What would you rather be doing?”
“What would help us put this behind us?”
“Is there anything else you would like to discuss
or clarify before we return to the substantive
issues you highlighted earlier?”
Acts irrationally (acts against
own interest)
▪ Not irrational – uninformed?
Possibly needs to hear from a
neutral 3rd
party
▪ Not irrational – has hidden
constraints or interests? Investigate:
“What might be motivating her to
act this way?”
▪ If truly irrational: 1) try to push
through an agreement despite his
irrationality 2) try to “go around
him” by negotiating with someone
else with authority who seems
more willing to listen to reason or
3) pursue your BATNA
Take it or leave it
Accept their offer in entirety or get
nothing at all
▪ Ignore at first (test their
commitment)
▪ Let them know what they have to
lose if no agreement is reached and
look for a face-saving way, such as a
change in circumstances, for them
to get out of the situation.
▪ Appeal to sense of fairness
▪ Suggest taking a break
Lock-in tactics
Announce the position to the press,
or otherwise on purpose put self
into a situation that makes it hard to
make a concession.
This is common in
labor-management and
international negotiations
▪ Interpret the commitment as an
aspiration
▪ Resist lock-ins on principle
▪ Avoid making the commitment a
central question. Deemphasize it
so that the other side can more
gracefully back down.
▪ “Oh, I see. You told the papers your goal
was to settle for $400,000. Well, we all have
our aspirations, I guess. Do you want to know
what mine are?”
▪ “Fine, Bob, I understand you made
that statement publicly. But my practice is
never to yield to pressure, only to reason.
Now let’s talk about the merits of the
problem.”

4. Ignite Communications http://www.ignitecommunications.co 4
Refuses to negotiate (“See you
in court”)
This is a possible negotiating
ploy: an attempt to use their
entry into negotiation as a
bargaining chip to obtain some
concession on substance. A
variant on this ploy is to set
preconditions for negotiations.
▪ Find out their interests in not
negotiating. Are they worried
about giving you status by talking
to you? Will those who talk with
you be criticized for being “soft”?
Do they think negotiation will
destroy their precarious internal
unity? Or do they simply not
believe that an agreement is
possible?
▪ Insist on using principles.
▪ Is this the way they would want you to
play? Do they want you to set preconditions
as well? Will they want others to
refuse to negotiate with them? What are the
principles they think should apply
to this situation?
Psychological warfare
These tactics are designed to
make you feel uncomfortable,
physically or psychologically,
so that you want to end the
negotiation asap.
They can attack your status by
making you wait for them or by
interrupting the negotiations to
deal with other people. They
can refuse to listen to you. They
can deliberately refuse to make
eye contact.
▪ Bringing the behavior up
explicitly will likely prevent a
recurrence.
▪ Frame the principle behind each
tactic as a proposed “rule” for the
game.
▪ “I am finding the sun in my eyes quite
distracting. Unless we can solve the problem,
I may have to leave early to get some rest.
Shall we revise the schedule?”
▪ “Is there a theory behind having me sit in the
low chair with my back to the open door? I
assume that you will sit in this chair
tomorrow morning?”
“Shall we alternate spilling coffee on one
another day by day?”
Ambiguous authority / second
bite at the apple
After reaching what seems to be a
final agreement, your counterpart
announces the need to get approval
from the boss. Then comes back
saying the boss almost approved –
just one more concessions from you
▪ Verify at the beginning you’re
your counterpart has full authority
▪ Clarify early in the negotiation
that “nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed,” so that any
effort to reopen one issue
automatically reopens all issues.
▪ If your boss approves this, I'll stick by it.
Otherwise each of us feel free to make
changes.
Hands tied
They say there is nothing they
can do to change the situation
because they don't have the
authority
▪ Check the facts to see whether
they are telling the truth. If yes,
identify and approach the real
authority
Dubious intentions
Possible misrepresentation of
their intention to comply with
the agreement
▪ Build in compliance features
into the contract. For example,
use contingency contracts
Snow job
They try to overwhelm you with so
much information that it is difficult
to determine which facts are real or
important
▪ Be patient and don't be afraid to
ask questions until you receive
answers that are understandable
▪ Request or suggest having
technical experts present

5. Ignite Communications http://www.ignitecommunications.co 5
Good guy/bad guy
They negotiate as a pair; one
threatens and takes a tough line
while the other shows compassion
and apologizes
▪ Tell them that you know what they
are doing
▪ Express dissatisfaction for using
the tactic
▪ Ignore the tactic
▪ “Say, Joe, I may be totally mistaken, but I’m
getting the feeling that you and Ted here are
playing a good-guy/bad-guy routine. If you
two want a recess any time to straighten out
differences between you, just ask.”
▪ “I appreciate that you are trying to be
reasonable, and I still want to know why you
think that’s a fair price. What is your principle?
”
Intimidation or aggressive
behavior
They attempt to force an agreement
or concession out of fear
▪ Ignore the tactics
▪ Or, halt the negotiations in order
to discuss the negotiation process
itself. Say that you know what
they are doing
▪ Appeal to reason, respect or
objective criteria. Express
dissatisfaction for using the
tactic
▪If necessary, stop the discussion
Blackmail
Guilt trip
Summary:
1. Recognize the behavior that’s being used on you
2. If possible reframe (or for some behaviors like threats – ignore).
o reframe attack as friendly
o reframe attack on you as an attack on the problem
o reframe from past to future
o reframe "you" to "we"
o reframe in terms of interests, options (solutions) and standards
Allow them to save face.
3. If the above doesn’t work - name the bad behavior and negotiate process:
o name problematic behavior
o avoid attribution (don’t attack people for using the behavior). Question the behavior, not
their personal integrity
o invite your counterpart to share perspective
o suggest way forward
4. If the above doesn’t work - change the player. This can mean many things, like using an
intermediary, going to another party, etc.
5. As a last resort, turn to your BATNA and walk out. “It’s my impression that you’re not interested
in negotiating in a way that we both think will produce results. Here’s my phone number. If I’m
mistaken, I’m ready any time you are.”
Sources:
• Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury
• Getting Past No by William Ury