Friendly reminder: Click the blue text above to follow 'FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting' for more marketing and distributor internal management insights.
Timely counterattack, attacking fortresses, 'good cop' 'bad cop', 'but' first, document tactics, deadline effects, breaking deadlocks, feinting east while attacking west, escaping by leaving the shell, letting go to catch, playing the pig to eat the tiger...
1. Timely Counterattack The success of a counterattack depends on whether the timing is accurate. A counterattack can only be used when the other party threatens you with 'terror tactics', so it can also be said to be a defensive battle that advances by retreating. Tom's successful example shows that a counterattack is the so-called 'borrowing force', which uses the opponent's strength plus your own to create a 'multiplier effect' and achieve success in one go.
Secondly, note that when using the counterattack method, if the other party does not think you are a person of 'consistent words and deeds', the effect will be greatly reduced. Johnson believed Tom was someone who 'meant what he said', so he made concessions before Tom formally declared war. If the situation were the opposite, the result would naturally be very different. Therefore, before using the counterattack method, you must first understand whether, in the eyes of the negotiation opponent, you are a person who is consistent in words and deeds.
2. Attacking the Fortress Negotiations, especially those concerning official business, usually involve more than one participant. In such 'one-to-many' or 'many-to-many' negotiations, the most suitable tactic is 'attacking the fortress'.
When there is more than one negotiation opponent, the one who actually holds the final decision-making power is only one of them. Here, we will call this person the 'opponent's leader' and the other negotiators the 'opponent's team members'. The 'opponent's leader' is the person we need to pay special attention to in negotiations, but we should not ignore the existence of the 'opponent's team members'.
During negotiations, sometimes no matter how hard you try, you cannot convince the 'opponent's leader'. In such cases, you should shift your target and launch an offensive against the 'opponent's team members', letting them understand your position, and through them, influence the 'opponent's leader'. The process may be more arduous than ordinary negotiations, but no matter what you do, the most important thing is to be persistent and keep trying to achieve final success.
When you cannot convince the 'opponent's leader', you need to find another way and point your attack at the 'opponent's team members'. This is like attacking a city in ancient times: if you first take the outer fortress, you can march straight in.
To capture a city, you must first take the fortress that protects it, and then you can enter as if no one is there. Similarly, when you cannot convince, you should change your approach and try to shake the 'opponent's leader's' position through the 'opponent's team members'.
When using the 'attacking the fortress' tactic, the key is to 'repeat explanations with variation'. Obviously, the 'opponent's leader' has already heard your arguments more than once, and now, if you use the same words to persuade the 'opponent's team members', the 'opponent's leader' will naturally feel bored. The 'opponent's team members' will also not listen attentively to your unchanging presentation. So, although the goal is the same, you must pay special attention to variation in the repetition process to avoid counterproductive effects. Also, note that even if you have seriously persuaded the 'opponent's team members', this does not guarantee that they will persuade the 'opponent's leader' as seriously as you did. If the 'opponent's team members' are unwilling to do so, even if you have done your best, the 'attacking the fortress' tactic will be difficult to achieve its effect.
3. 'Good Cop' 'Bad Cop' Once, the legendary billionaire Hughes wanted to buy a large number of aircraft. He planned to buy thirty-four, and of those, eleven were absolutely essential. Initially, Hughes personally negotiated with the aircraft manufacturer, but no matter how they talked, they couldn't reach an agreement, and finally the tycoon flew into a rage and stormed off. However, Hughes did not give up, so he found an agent to continue negotiations on his behalf. Hughes told the agent that he would be satisfied if he could buy the eleven he liked most. As a result of the negotiations, the agent managed to buy all thirty-four aircraft. Hughes admired the agent's skill and asked how he did it. The agent replied: 'It was simple. Every time the negotiation reached a deadlock, I asked them: Do you want to talk with me, or do you want Hughes to come back? After I asked that, the other side would say, "Forget it, we'll do it your way."' To use the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' tactic, you need two negotiators, and the two negotiators must not attend the first round of negotiations together. If they appear together, if one leaves a bad impression, it will inevitably affect the other's impression, which is very unfavorable for the second round.
The first negotiator plays the 'bad cop', whose responsibility is to provoke reactions like 'this person is not easy to deal with' or 'it's really bad luck to meet such a negotiation opponent'. The second negotiator plays the 'good cop', acting as a 'peace angel', making the other party feel 'finally a sigh of relief'. In this way, the two alternate, taking turns until the negotiation achieves its goal.
The first negotiator only needs to make the other party feel 'I really don't want to continue talking with this kind of person', but this tactic can only be used in situations where the other party is extremely eager to reach an agreement. When the other party intends to seek a solution through negotiation, they will not stop negotiating because of a bad impression of the first negotiator. So, before the negotiation, you must first try to control the other party's attitude toward the negotiation. If it is 'negotiable or not', then the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' tactic will not be useful.
As mentioned earlier, it is more advantageous to negotiate on your own turf, but when using the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' tactic, it is better to negotiate on the opponent's turf. No matter how the first negotiator 'challenges' the other party, if the negotiation is on their turf, based on a sense of security that 'this is my territory anyway', the other party usually will not have overly emotional reactions. Therefore, when the second negotiator appears, their attitude will naturally not be too bad.
Conversely, if the negotiation is on your turf and the other party is angered by the first negotiator, they may refuse to come again or simply request a change of venue. Once the venue changes, the other party may shake off the unpleasantness of the previous negotiation, cheer up, and face your challenge with high morale. If so, the effect of the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' tactic will be greatly reduced.
The effectiveness of the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' tactic comes from the 'joint operation' of the first and second negotiators. The second negotiator uses the bad impression the other party has of the first negotiator to continue the 'connecting' work. If the first negotiator's 'performance' is not successful, the second negotiator naturally has no role to play.
4. 'But' First 'However...' This 'however' is a commonly used speaking technique. A famous TV host cleverly used this technique when interviewing a special guest. 'I think you probably don't like being asked about your private life, but...' This 'but' serves as a warning to the special guest: 'Although you don't like it, I still have to...' In everyday language, synonyms for 'but' include 'however', 'nevertheless', 'although', etc. Using these transition words as a 'prelude' to asking questions makes it easier for the other party to answer and avoids causing resentment.
'However...' has the function of inducing the other party to answer questions. The host mentioned earlier then asked: 'However, the audience in front of the TV are eagerly hoping to learn more about your private life, so...' Asked in this way, even if the special guest doesn't want to answer, it's hard to refuse.
Easing Tension In negotiations, when the issue itself is quite complex and difficult to broach, but it must be asked, the 'slow movement' technique is usually used. The slow movement technique in speaking has the effect of preventing the other party from getting angry and allowing the negotiation to proceed smoothly.
During negotiations, we sometimes inevitably become emotional, sometimes have to ask questions that involve personal attacks, and sometimes must meet again with opponents we have previously defeated. In such situations, how should you handle it? Here's an example. Suppose your current negotiation opponent recently discussed a land sale with you, and at the time, they thought the price they offered was very reasonable, but later they thought about it more and more and felt the price was too low, and they suffered a big loss. In this case, when this opponent meets you again to discuss another land sale, they will inevitably be upset and angry. So, no matter how reasonable your price is, they will not easily agree. The reason they don't agree is not about whether the price is reasonable, but because they have decided to sell at a higher price to make up for the previous loss.
Similar examples happen often. So, when you find that the opponent has a grudge against you, you must handle it carefully. The best way to turn conflict into peace is to sincerely and directly explain at the beginning to eliminate the accumulated dissatisfaction and resentment, allowing everything to start anew.
You might say: 'The last land deal is over. Thinking about it now, I do feel a bit sorry, but...' Then you should try to make the other party understand, and if they no longer harbor resentment, the negotiation can proceed smoothly. This is the so-called slow movement technique in speaking.
Interjecting in Speech The 'interjecting in speech' slow movement technique has the power to change the entire negotiation situation.
Ruonan once handled a lawsuit that had been decided by the court. But the two sides still disputed the validity of the court ruling, and after several discussions, there was still no concrete result. However, Ruonan noticed signs that the other side's confidence was slightly wavering.
The validity of the court decision had a significant impact on the negotiation outcome. Therefore, although the other side felt there was no need to discuss the issue further, Ruonan repeatedly used the 'interjecting in speech' slow movement technique to bring the topic back to the validity of the ruling. Ruonan kept telling the other side: 'Although we have fully discussed the court decision, bringing it up again is indeed a bit anticlimactic. However...' Then he explained his views on the ruling. In this way, whenever there was an opportunity, Ruonan repeatedly stated his views on the court decision. Finally, the other side's confidence completely wavered, and they accepted Ruonan's proposal instead.
5. Document Tactics A financial company held a board meeting, with twelve directors sitting around an oval table in heated discussion. Eleven directors had paper and pens in front of them, but the other one? Besides paper and pens, there were piles of documents, each stack almost ten centimeters thick. The directors spoke enthusiastically about the central topic of the meeting—changes in the company's management policy—and for a while, arguments arose, making it hard to reach a conclusion.
In the chaos, the director who had brought the large amount of documents remained silent, but every director who spoke would, without exception, cast a look of awe at the pile of documents. After everyone had spoken, the chairman asked the seemingly prepared director to say a few words. The director stood up, casually picked up the top stack of documents, said a few brief words, and sat down again. After a short discussion, the eleven directors all felt that the last speaker 'made sense' and unanimously agreed with his opinion, ending the chaotic and lengthy debate.
After the meeting, the chairman hurried over to shake hands with the director who had the final say, thanking him for his valuable opinions and expressing admiration for the effort he had put into collecting the materials.
'What? These documents have nothing to do with today's meeting! These are things the secretary organized and gave me to look over; if they weren't worth keeping, they were to be burned. And I was planning to go on vacation after the meeting, so I brought them along to the meeting. As for the note I held when I spoke, it was just a summary I jotted down while listening to everyone's speeches. To be honest, I didn't prepare anything for this meeting beforehand.'
The 'misunderstood' director explained.
You can't judge things by appearances. At ordinary board meetings, everyone brings nothing but paper and pens. But this time, a director suddenly appeared with a large pile of materials, which not only surprised everyone but also made them think that since he brought so many reference materials, he must have prepared thoroughly in advance. Because of this association, no matter what the director said, everyone felt it was 'weighty' and 'made sense', so they adopted it without objection. Unlike meetings, when using 'document tactics' in negotiations, the 'tools' you carry—the various documents and materials—must be related to the negotiation itself. If you bring a large number of irrelevant materials to the negotiation to 'bluff', once discovered, your negotiation credibility will be ruined, and as emphasized repeatedly, once credibility is lost, it is difficult to recover or compensate. Therefore, in negotiations, you must be extremely careful never to make the mistake of 'losing credibility' for temporary convenience. This is a principle of negotiation.
In any negotiation, it is very important to pay attention to whether the tactics or techniques you use are suitable for the content of the negotiation. If the tactics or techniques are not clever enough or not suitable for the negotiation content, the negotiation will not proceed smoothly.
The effect of 'document tactics' mostly occurs at the beginning of the negotiation, when both sides sit down across the table. Why? Imagine if you suddenly bring out a large pile of documents in the middle of the negotiation, wouldn't the other side become suspicious? The purpose of bringing a large pile of documents to the negotiation is to let the other side know how thorough your preparation was and how deep your understanding of the negotiation content is. But if you bring them out midway, the other side won't think that way.
Secondly, once you adopt 'document tactics', you must be consistent from start to finish. In every negotiation, don't forget to bring all the documents with you; otherwise, it will arouse suspicion or even contempt. If there is a reason not to bring the documents, you should explain in detail to the other side so they understand.
When the negotiation has progressed to a stage where all important issues have been settled and only two or three minor issues remain, you can end your 'document tactics'. However, before removing all the documents, it is necessary to explain to the other side: 'The important issues have been discussed; these materials are no longer needed' to avoid suspicion. Also, if the negotiation venue changes, making it inconvenient to carry a large pile of documents, you must also inform the other side: 'Those things are too heavy and inconvenient to carry.' In short, when you feel there is no longer any need to use 'document tactics', no matter the reason, the most important thing is not to make the other side suspicious.
Negotiations are naturally more advantageous on your own 'turf'. But sometimes, you have to go into the tiger's den and negotiate on the opponent's turf.
If you negotiate on the opponent's turf, you have to consider the issue of carrying documents. It is inconvenient to carry a large pile of documents on a bus, and there is also a risk of losing them in a taxi. And when the other side sees you 'carrying' a pile of documents as high as a small mountain, the first thing they will think is that you are using 'document tactics' against them.
So, when negotiating on the opponent's turf, it is best not to bring anything except the necessary documents that will be used in the negotiation. Doing so not only makes you relaxed and avoids suspicion, but also helps enhance your credibility.
And credibility is the key to successful negotiation.
6. Deadline Effects From statistics, we find that many negotiations, especially complex ones, are concluded just before the deadline. However, there are also many negotiations without a set deadline.
If a negotiation has a deadline, unless the deadline is reached, the negotiator will not feel any pressure; the saying 'tears don't fall until you see the coffin' is the same principle.
For example, people are usually not afraid of death, even though they know everyone will eventually die, but they always feel it is 'far off'. However, if one day a doctor suddenly announces that you only have one month to live, who can bear such a blow?
Thus, as the negotiation deadline approaches, the anxiety and unease of both sides will increase, and this anxiety will reach its peak on the day and hour the negotiation ends. This is also the best time to use negotiation techniques.
Remember the twelve-day meeting between US President Carter, Egyptian President Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Begin at Camp David? The purpose of this summit was to resolve all the unresolved issues between Israel and Egypt that had been pending for thirty years. These issues were very complex, so the negotiation started slowly and was often interrupted; no one was sure of the outcome. So, the organizers had to set a deadline for the negotiation—next Sunday. Indeed, as the deadline approached, some issues were resolved. And just a day or two before Sunday, the negotiation atmosphere suddenly became unprecedentedly smooth, more issues were resolved, and Israel and Egypt reached a final agreement. In such a major negotiation, the 'deadline' still produced astonishing effects, so if you can also apply this psychology to various negotiations, you can naturally achieve the expected results.
A cowboy in the American West barged into a saloon to drink. After a few glasses, he started causing trouble, trashing the place. Not only that, he even pulled out a gun and shot at the ceiling, and even at the guests. While everyone was at a loss, the saloon owner—a thin, mild-mannered man—walked up to the cowboy and ordered: 'I'll give you five minutes to leave this place.' Surprisingly, the cowboy obediently put away his gun, grabbed his bottle, and staggered out of the saloon. After the shock, someone asked the owner: 'What would you have done if the thug refused to leave?' The owner replied: 'Simple, extend the deadline and give him more time.'
The above story only proves the saloon owner's 'good luck', but in negotiation, the owner's behavior is highly referential. In order for the 'deadline' to have its intended effect, the negotiator must take responsibility for everything that may happen before the deadline; this is the prerequisite for 'setting a limit'. Only when new circumstances arise or there are sufficient reasons can the 'deadline' be extended. If the other side thinks you are someone who does not keep to the set deadline, or if you have a 'record' of arbitrarily extending deadlines, then 'setting a limit' will have no effect on the opponent. Even if the deadline arrives, no one will feel anxious or uneasy because they have already calculated that you 'don't take the deadline seriously'.
Your negotiation opponent might inadvertently reveal a 'deadline' for ending the negotiation, such as 'I have to get to the airport within an hour' or 'In an hour, I have to attend an important meeting'. Such 'self-imposed limits' give you an opportunity, don't they? In this case, you just need to wait slowly for the 'last moment' to come. As the time for the flight or meeting approaches, the other side's tension and anxiety will surely increase, even wishing for an agreement in one second. At this moment, you can slowly make various demands: 'So, what do you think? I think my proposal is quite fair; just nod your head, and if you agree, you can go ahead and handle your next business!' Due to time pressure, the other side may reluctantly agree to your proposal without daring to object.
The above is an example of the negotiation opponent setting an unfavorable deadline for themselves. This also reminds you not to make the same mistake. Such a mistake would never happen to a skilled negotiator.
In negotiation, no matter which side proposes the 'deadline', once the deadline is set, it should not be easily changed. So, no matter what, you must devote all your efforts to completing all preparations within the deadline to avoid pressure from the deadline. If the other side proposes an unreasonable deadline, as long as you protest, the deadline can be extended. However, if the other side refuses your request to extend the deadline, or thinks the deadline they set is reasonable, then it's a problem. In this case, the only thing you can do is redouble your efforts, collect information, and formulate strategies. If you keep getting angry at the other side's 'unreasonableness' and waste the limited time, you will fall into their trap. No matter how much time you have, calmly formulating countermeasures and carefully checking your strategies is the wisest approach.
For example, if you want to buy a piece of real estate, and the other side gives you only ten days to decide whether to buy at their price, you should first examine their proposal from various angles. If you think the price is unreasonable, it is best to explain your views to the other side as early as possible before the deadline. If possible, you can also set a new deadline according to your own wishes. Doing so will save you from becoming a victim of the set deadline.
7. Adjusting the Agenda Once, I was riding in a truck along a winding road. There were many steep slopes, up and down, down and up, which made me, sitting in the passenger seat, nervous and sweating. However, the truck driver's gear-shifting technique was truly skillful. He seemed to shift gears purely by intuition; the speed did not slow down when going uphill, nor did it rush forward when going downhill. In short, the people in the car were always stable, without any discomfort. So, what is the so-called 'gear shifting' in negotiation? 'Gear shifting' in negotiation means trying to change the central topic during the negotiation. If you can master the 'gear shifting' technique as skillfully as that truck driver, then no matter what negotiation, the initiative will be in your hands.
Soviet negotiation experts were masters of 'gear shifting'. In the arms limitation talks, they repeatedly used the 'gear shifting' technique of changing and shifting arguments, dominating the entire scene.
In the arms limitation talks, both the US and the Soviet Union were eager to reach an agreement, meaning that no matter what difficulties the negotiation encountered, they had to sit at the table and continue discussing until there was a result. In fact, many negotiations, such as those between companies, governments, local authorities, and various unions, are the same.
Even if the negotiation cannot reach a unanimous agreement, leading to the worst situations like slowdowns or strikes, both sides must continue to work hard to find a reasonable solution. In short, even if the negotiation is temporarily suspended, both sides must return to the table. Suppose you represent the employer; then, the labor side's repeated demands on wages, medical care, and even vacation issues—this is a kind of 'gear shifting', a technique of changing topics at any time—might make you feel dissatisfied and hard to handle. However, for the sake of the overall situation, you must meet the basic requirement of 'keeping the negotiation going'.
Sometimes, one or both sides of the negotiation are eager to reach a certain level of agreement. For example, if you want to buy an influential asset (company, patent, land, famous painting, diamond, antique, or horse) held by the other side, then, in order for the 'gear shifting' technique to be effective in the negotiation, the most important thing is not to let the other side detect your intention. You can talk about other things, pretend to be indifferent, or feint east while attacking west. In short, if the other side detects your 'strong desire to buy', they will try every means to deal with you, making it difficult for you to achieve your wish.
If the other side intends to end the negotiation, they will not allow you to use the 'gear shifting' technique of arbitrarily changing topics, unless the topic is of great interest to them or very important to the negotiation itself. Of course, if your negotiation opponent is inexperienced or lacks motivation, that is another matter.
In non-important negotiations, when you want to change the topic, you should explain the reason for the change to the other side in advance to gain their understanding and then have them accept your proposal without objection.
To control the initiative in the negotiation, from the very beginning, you often need to fully use the 'gear shifting' technique. However, before each topic change, you need to explain the reason for the change in advance to gain the other side's understanding. In this way, the other side is dragged into the maze of 'gear shifting' and retreats to the defensive line.
In negotiation, once the other side retreats to the defensive line, you have taken a big step forward and gained the advantage.
Like this article? Feel free to click the top right corner to share it to your Moments.
About us: WeChat Name: FMCG Distributor Professional Consulting Management Account Introduction: 20 years of FMCG distributor operation and management experience, professionally targeting distributor departments: We understand distributors better than manufacturers, and we understand internal management better than distributors. Senior marketing experts help your business grow.
Learning and Exchange QQ Group: 344257092