Negotiation touches every part of our daily routines—whether you secure a better salary with your boss or haggle for a lower price at the market. It qualifies as an art, demanding a specific set of skills and strategies for success. Yet, some negotiators lean on tactics like good cop/bad cop, artificial deadlines, and even ethically questionable maneuvers to gain an edge. While these methods may work in a cutthroat zero-sum exchange, they risk igniting cycles of threats and demands that breed impasse and distrust.
This article dives into several common distributive negotiation tactics and explores the motives behind them. Let’s examine these techniques one by one.
Salami Tactic
The salami tactic slices a large demand into smaller, bite-sized pieces. Negotiators deploy this approach when the other side balks at big concessions but might nod at smaller ones. This method lets you chip away at your goal without triggering resistance. For instance, if you need to bring the price of a bed down from €850 to €700, asking for €700 outright might shut down the conversation. Instead, you might start by requesting a 10% discount. Next, propose a €40 rebate on a showroom model, and later, point out a minor flaw to secure an extra €25 off. Before long, these incremental concessions bring you to your €700 target.
Good Cop/Bad Cop
In the good cop/bad cop routine, two negotiators adopt contrasting roles. One takes on a friendly, empathetic demeanor, while the other plays the aggressive, confrontational part. This setup nudges the other party toward trusting the friendlier figure, making them more willing to concede ground.
Cherry Picking
Cherry picking means selectively highlighting facts that bolster your case while setting aside details that might undermine it. This technique works because it makes your arguments appear stronger and encourages the other side to lower their resistance to your demands.
Limited Authority
The limited authority tactic sees a negotiator claim they lack the power to make certain concessions—even when they do. This strategy buys time and invites further thought. However, overusing it can frustrate the other party, prompting them to insist on speaking directly with someone who holds real decision-making power.
The Nibble
With the nibble tactic, you insert a small, last-minute demand just as the deal nears closure. The goal here is to extract one final concession that might not have surfaced otherwise. Some even refer to it as the “one-last-thing” or “the Columbo” tactic. Reflect on who faces the real time crunch and whether you’re ready to add one more small request on the condition of securing another benefit.
Deadline
Setting a firm deadline forces the opposing party into a sense of urgency. This tactic pressures them to make concessions before time runs out, as a looming deadline creates a need for quick resolution. Ask yourself what unfolds if the deadline passes without reaching an agreement.
Walk Away
The walk away tactic signals that you’re prepared to leave the table if your terms aren’t met. This approach generates urgency and can compel the other side to reconsider their position. However, use this strategy with care, ensuring you always plan how to return to the negotiation if needed.
Negotiation remains a complex process, and distributive tactics represent just one piece of the puzzle. At their core, these strategies aim to tilt the outcome in your favor by shaping perceptions of power and pressure. To counteract them effectively, a negotiator must clearly define their own business drivers, set firm objectives, and know their alternatives (BATNA). Staying alert to the array of distributive methods and spotting them early often diffuses their impact.
Before you decide to deploy these tactics yourself, pause and ask: Are you facing a competitive, zero-sum showdown or a collaborative conversation? Finally, align your approach with internal stakeholders and weigh whether risking trust is a price worth paying for the potential gain.
Adrien-Joseph Le Clef 
