Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
by Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton
Contents
8 What If They Use Dirty Tricks? - (Taming the Hard Bargainer)
Overview
This chapter explains how to handle counterparts who use deceptive or pressure-laden tactics. The authors propose three steps: recognize the tactic, raise it explicitly, and negotiate fair rules for the process. They categorize tricks—deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure—and show principled counters, emphasizing verification, contingent agreements, objective criteria, and readiness to walk away.
Summary
The chapter asks how to respond when the other side uses dirty tricks—lies, abuse, or pressure—and rejects two common but flawed reactions: tolerating the behavior or retaliating in kind. Instead, the authors urge negotiating the rules of the game: first recognize the tactic, then raise it explicitly, and finally question its legitimacy to reach principled process agreements.
They apply the core method to process: separate people from problem (criticize tactics, not character), focus on interests (why use this move?), invent options (e.g., media blackout), and insist on objective criteria (reciprocity tests). If needed, rely on BATNA and walk away when tactics undermine a fair negotiation.
Under deliberate deception, they address phony facts with verification, ambiguous authority by clarifying decision power and insisting on reciprocity if new approvals appear, and dubious intentions by embedding compliance through contingent agreements that align consequences with claimed certainty, distinguishing non-disclosure from deceit.
Under psychological warfare, they counter stressful settings by identifying and renegotiating conditions, neutralize personal attacks by naming them, resist good-guy/bad-guy by demanding principles, and defuse threats by recasting them as warnings, interrupting their communication, or publicly reframing—while remaining principled rather than reactive.
Under positional pressure, they treat refusals to negotiate and preconditions as topics for dialogue (interests, third parties, principles), expose extreme openings by asking for justifications, halt escalating demands by naming the pattern and pausing, and blunt lock-in tactics by downplaying commitments and returning to merits. They also bypass the “hardhearted partner” by confirming principles and engaging the partner, counter calculated delays with objective deadlines or fading opportunities, and soften “take it or leave it” by ignoring it, expanding options, and offering face-saving exits.
The chapter concludes by encouraging early discussion of ground rules and adherence to internal ethics. Be firm on principle, ready to walk if necessary, and avoid becoming a victim of dirty bargaining.
Who Appears
- Principled negotiatorThe advised party; recognizes tricks, calls them out, and negotiates fair process using objective criteria and BATNA.
- Hard bargainerCounterparty employing deception, psychological pressure, or positional tactics to secure one-sided gains.
- Neville ChamberlainExample of yielding to escalating demands at Munich; illustrates failure of appeasing tricky tactics.
- Adolf HitlerRaises demands after apparent agreement; used as historical example of manipulative negotiation.
- Prime Minister of MaltaExample of escalating demands during base rights talks, reopening issues to extract additional concessions.
- Wife's lawyerDesigns contingent agreement to ensure child support compliance without relying on trust.
- Husband's lawyerClaims client reliability; confronted with contingent terms aligning consequences with asserted certainty.
- Union negotiatorIllustrates deadline delays, threats, and public lock-in rhetoric in labor bargaining scenarios.
- Management representativeCounterparty in labor examples; may issue final offers or face deadlines; urged to respond with principles.
- Good-guy/bad-guy teamPaired negotiators staging contrasting personas to induce concessions; neutralized by demanding principled justification.