Fisher and Ury identify the general types of tricky tactics. The parties may deliberately charge the facts, their authority or their intentions with the authorities with the authorities. The best way to protect yourself from deception is to verify the other party`s assertions. It may be helpful to ask them to further clarify their application or submit their application in writing. However, it is very important not to be considered a liar of the other party; i.e. as a personal attack. Another type of tactic is psychological warfare. If the delicate party uses a stressful environment, the principled party should identify the problematic element and propose a more comfortable or equitable change. Subtle personal attacks can be made less effective, simply recognizing them for what they are.
The explicit identification of the insulting part will often put an end to aspiration attacks. Threats are a means of exerting psychological pressure. The policy negotiator should, as far as possible, ignore them or conduct negotiations in principle on the use of threats during the proceedings. Once you have identified a desirable outcome for both parties, you should make it a priority to identify the points of agreement. You may be concerned about conflict zones and you like to start negotiations, but it is really important to explicitly list the areas in which you both are happy to agree. This will put both parties in a more positive frame and give you a foundation on which you can build. Sometimes it`s inevitable to negotiate with a ball-breaker. If you find the house of your dreams, you have to negotiate with the owner. And sometimes a business opportunity is so good that you`re ready to face stressful negotiations to land them.
But if you don`t really appreciate the cut-and-thrust of competitive negotiations, you should try to deal with people who understand the value of a mutually beneficial deal and are willing to consider your position as well as their own. The strongest card you can pay for each negotiation is knowing that you are free to leave if you don`t like what is offered. If you know you have other options, it puts you in a relaxed frame of mind, so you are more confident and creative in looking for mutually beneficial solutions. If the other party takes aggressive, intimidating or too dirty tricks, ask yourself if you really need to handle this. If possible, leave. Otherwise, you have a number of options: participants can avoid falling into a win-lose mentality by focusing on common interests. If the interests of the parties are different, they should look for options in which these differences can be made compatible or even complementary. The key to coordinating different interests is to “search for items that are profitable for you and that are very beneficial to them, and vice versa.” [p. 79] Each party should try to make proposals that are attractive to the other party and that the other party would easily approve. To do this, it is important to identify decision makers and direct them directly to them.
Proposals are easier to agree when they appear legitimate or if they are supported by precedents. Threats are generally less effective in motivating the agreement than advantageous offers. Instead, the weaker party should focus on evaluating its best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). The authors note that “the reason you negotiate is to produce something better than the results you can achieve without negotiation.” [p. 104] The weaker party should refuse agreements that would make it worse than its BATNA. Without a clear vision of its BATNA, a party negotiates blindly. BATNA is also the key to making the most of existing assets. The power in a negotiation comes from the ability to detach itself from negotiations.