Negotiation Glossary A-Z of Terms, Tactics & Practical Meanings

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A

Anchoring

What it is:
Anchoring is the act of setting the first reference point—usually a price, range, or position—that shapes the entire negotiation.

Why it matters:
People adjust insufficiently away from anchors, even when they know they are arbitrary. Early anchors heavily influence what feels “reasonable.”

Practical example:
A supplier opens with a 15% increase. Even if you negotiate down to 10% and feel satisfied, the anchor has already shifted expectations upward. If the supplier had opened with 12% increase, you would have negotiated down to 8-9% possibly.

Related words: Framing, Reframing

Aspiration Level

What it is:
The aspiration level is the ideal outcome you aim to achieve in a negotiation. It is intentionally more ambitious than your minimum acceptable result and represents what success would look like if things go well.

Why it matters:
Higher aspirations prevent premature concessions and shape how assertively you negotiate. They also help you anchor higher, which expands the bargaining range and increases the likelihood of reaching a more favorable final agreement.

Practical example:
Targeting a 10% cost reduction may result in a 6–7% outcome which is better than aiming for 4%. Therefore, higher aspiration level leads to better outcomes.

What it is:
An accusation audit is a negotiation and communication technique that involves proactively acknowledging the negative perceptions, fears, or objections the other party may have before they voice them. The term was popularized by the Black Swan Group.

Why it matters:
By naming unspoken concerns upfront, an accusation audit reduces defensiveness, builds trust, and prevents emotional escalation. It helps the other party feel understood rather than judged.

Practical example:
A negotiator begins by saying, “You may feel that we are pushing too hard on price and not appreciating the pressure you’re under,” before discussing terms.

Note: The term “Accusation Audit” is commonly associated with the Black Swan negotiation methodology.

Related Words: Tactical Empathy

Accusation Audit

B

BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)

What it is:
The full form of BATNA is Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. The best option or alternative available to you if the negotiation fails and no agreement is reached. The BATNA represents the plan B, in the event that negotiations does not lead to an agreement.

Why it matters:
BATNA is a source of power in negotiation because it gives you a credible alternative. When you know your BATNA, you will not agree to an offer that is worse than your best available alternative. It also gives you the confidence to walk away from a negotiation that does not meet your minimum requirements and sets a clear boundary you will not cross. Without clarity on your BATNA, negotiators tend to negotiate emotionally and risk accepting a bad deal.

Practical example:
A buyer is negotiating with Supplier A at ₹100 per unit. The buyer has a qualified backup supplier who can reliably supply the same item at ₹102 per unit. Knowing this, the buyer will not agree to any offer worse than ₹102 and can calmly walk away if Supplier A insists on ₹105, without risking operational disruption.

Related Words: WATNA, ZOPA, Reservation Point

Bogey Tactic

What it is:
A bogey is a negotiation tactic where a party deliberately exaggerates the importance of an issue (e.g. budget or policy) that has relatively low value to them, presenting it as a major constraint or obstacle so that they can trade it for high value concession from the other party.

Why it matters:
By making the issue appear critical, the negotiator encourages the other side to invest time and effort in “solving” it. When the bogey is later conceded, it creates a sense of reciprocity and is used to extract concessions on issues that truly matter.

Practical example:
A customer insists that their budget limit of ₹10 million cannot be exceeded and frames it as non-negotiable. Later, they accept a ₹10.3 million deal after securing 90-day payment terms and free on-site support—revealing that cash flow and service, not budget, were the real drivers.

Related Words: Tactics, Decoy Tactic

Bracketing

What it is:
Bracketing is a negotiation technique where one party responds to an extreme offer with another extreme counteroffer, with the intention that the final agreement will settle somewhere between the two positions. The bracket created by the two extremes frames the likely settlement range.

Why it matters:
Bracketing helps negotiators manage extreme anchors and steer discussions toward a more acceptable midpoint. When used deliberately, it can reset unrealistic expectations and pull the negotiation back into a workable range. However, careless bracketing can legitimise unreasonable anchors if not done thoughtfully.

Practical example:
A seller asks for ₹120 per unit while the buyer wants to pay ₹80. Instead of countering at ₹100, the buyer counters at ₹85, creating a bracket that pulls the likely settlement closer to their preferred range rather than the seller’s original anchor.

C

Cherry Picking

What it is:
Cherry picking is a negotiation tactic where one party selectively accepts only the favorable elements of a proposal while ignoring, postponing, or reopening the less favorable parts.

Why it matters:
Cherry picking undermines balanced agreements and erodes value by breaking the link between concessions and trade-offs. If left unchecked, it can result in one-sided outcomes where benefits are taken without corresponding commitments. Skilled negotiators treat proposals as integrated packages rather than isolated items.

Practical example:
A buyer agrees to a lower price from a bundled proposal but pushes back on volume commitments and payment terms, attempting to capture the benefit while avoiding the associated trade-offs.

Concessions

What it is:
A concession is anything you give up to move the negotiation forward—such as price, scope, timelines, service levels, or risk-sharing terms. These are strategic compromises that one makes to find a common ground for win-win outcomes.

Why it matters:
Concessions help to move the negotiations forward and overcome any deadlock. They also shape the perceived balance of power. Unplanned or unconditional concessions weaken your position and encourage further demands, while disciplined concessions help manage movement and protect value.

Practical example:
An employee may accept a 6% salary increase instead of 10% in exchange for a confirmed promotion review after one year and flexibility in working arrangements.

Concession Strategy

What it is:
A concession strategy is a well thought through plan for when, how, and how much you are willing to concede as well as what you expect to gain in return during the negotiation process.

Why it matters:
Having a strategy prevents reactive decision-making and conceding more than is necessary to reach an agreement. It allows you to control the pace of concessions and ensures that every concession is traded, not given away.

Practical example:
A supplier may make a concession of offering 2% cash discount as compared to the standard payment term of 60 days. It helps them to compensate for the cost of working capital which maybe 1% to 2% per month.

Counter-offer

What it is:
A counteroffer is a response that modifies one or more elements of an offer rather than accepting or rejecting it outright.

Why it matters:
Counteroffers keep the negotiation alive while allowing you to redirect the discussion toward issues that matter more to you. It helps to make your position and interests clear to the other party so that a common ground could be achieved for win-win outcomes.

Practical example:
Instead of agreeing to a price cut, a supplier counters with a proposal that links discounts to higher volumes or longer contract duration.

Related Words: Offer

D

Deadlock

What it is:
A deadlock occurs when neither party is willing to concede or move further on the current set of issues, and progress stalls. It may happen due to each party holding on to its position, competing negotiation styles, lack of collaboration, miscommunication, conflicting interests, lack of ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement), mistrust, emotional response to an issue or ego.

Why it matters:
Deadlocks often indicate that the negotiation is stuck on positions rather than interests, or that important issues have not yet been introduced. Preventing or overcoming deadlocks is an important negotiation skill to find win-win outcomes. Focusing on interests, positive reframing, empathizing, finding options are some of the effective techniques for overcoming deadlocks.

Practical example:
An investment negotiation between a founder and an investor reaches a deadlock over equity share percentages. When the founder digs into the investor’s real interests, it becomes clear that downside protection and exit certainty matter more than ownership. By introducing preference shares and exit clauses, the deadlock is broken and the deal moves forward.

Decoy Tactic

What it is:
A decoy tactic ( similar to Bogey tactic) involves introducing another demand or option — real, exaggerated, or vague—to create urgency or pressure in the negotiation.

Why it matters:
Perceived competition can be as influential as real competition. It creates perceived power to make other party concede more than they would otherwise. Decoys often push the other party to improve terms more quickly.

Practical example:
A buyer mentions they are “also evaluating another supplier,” prompting the supplier to concede on price or terms despite buyer's no immediate intention to switch.

Related Words: Tactics, Bogey Tactic

Distributive Negotiation

What it is:
Distributive negotiation is a competitive approach where parties negotiate over a fixed amount of value, often described as a “fixed pie.” Any gain by one party is perceived as a loss to the other, making the negotiation inherently win–lose.

Why it matters:
Distributive negotiations tend to focus narrowly on positions—most commonly price—and can create adversarial dynamics. While appropriate in one-time or transactional situations, overreliance on this approach can damage relationships, limit value creation, and reduce long-term collaboration.

Practical example:
A buyer and seller negotiate the price of a one-time equipment purchase. The buyer’s objective is to push the price as low as possible, while the seller aims to maximise margin. No other issues—such as service, delivery, or future business—are considered, making the outcome purely distributive.

Related Words: Integrative Negotiation

E

What it is:
An emotional appeal uses feelings such as pleading helplessness, frustration, guilt, or fear to influence negotiation outcomes rather than relying on data or logic.

Why it matters:
Emotions can override rational judgment. If left unchecked, emotional appeals may lead to concessions that are not economically justified. Skilled negotiators are able to separate emotions from the underlying issues and refocus the discussion on facts, interests, and objective criteria.

Practical example:
A supplier claims that a price reduction would “seriously hurt their team,” without providing any cost data or financial evidence to support the claim, using emotional pressure rather than objective facts to influence the negotiation.

Emotional Appeal

Escalation of Commitment

What it is:
Escalation of commitment is the tendency to continue negotiating or pursuing a deal even when it no longer makes economic or strategic sense, simply because of the time, effort, or ego already invested.

Why it matters:
This bias can trap negotiators into accepting unfavorable agreements simply to avoid admitting sunk cost or time. Walking away from a bad deal, even after significant effort has been invested, is often the more rational and value-preserving decision.

Practical example:
After months of negotiation, a buyer agrees to poor terms just to avoid restarting the sourcing process. A more rational approach would have been to reassess the deal against the buyer’s BATNA and walk away once it was clear that the agreement no longer created value.

F

Face-Saving

What it is:
Face-saving involves allowing the other party to preserve dignity or credibility while making concessions by framing those concessions in a way that avoids blame, embarrassment, or loss of status.

Why it matters:
People naturally resist agreements that make them appear weak or defeated. Face-saving enables movement in negotiations by allowing concessions to occur without loss of dignity, reducing resistance and preserving relationships for future collaboration.

Practical example:
A manager agrees to relax a previously firm position but explains the change as being due to “new internal guidelines” or a revised policy, rather than admitting that it resulted from pressure in the negotiation. This allows the manager to accept the concession without feeling a loss of credibility or status.

Flinch Tactic

What it is:
A flinch is a deliberate and visible reaction of surprise, shock, or disbelief to an offer, used to signal that the proposal is unreasonable or impractical without directly confronting it.

Why it matters:
It signals that the offer is unacceptable without directly confronting or escalating the situation, often prompting the other party to reconsider, justify, or improve their proposal.

Practical example:
A buyer visibly pauses, raises their eyebrows, and reacts in surprise when presented with a sudden price hike, signaling that the increase is unexpected and unacceptable and prompting the supplier to reconsider or soften the offer.

Related Words: Tactics

Framing

What it is:
Framing is the way information, options, or proposals are presented in a negotiation to influence how they are perceived and evaluated. The same facts can lead to very different reactions depending on how they are framed.

Why it matters:
People respond not just to facts, but to how those facts are contextualised. Effective framing can shape perceptions of risk, value, fairness, and urgency, often steering decisions without changing the underlying substance. Poor framing, on the other hand, can trigger resistance even when the proposal is objectively reasonable.

Practical example:
A supplier presents a price increase as a “3% adjustment to maintain service reliability” rather than a “price hike,” framing the change around value preservation instead of cost increase—making it easier for the buyer to accept.

Related Words: Anchoring, Reframing

G

Good Cop Bad Cop Tactic

What it is:
Good cop–bad cop is a negotiation tactic that uses two people with contrasting negotiating styles, where one negotiator adopts a tough, confrontational stance while the other appears cooperative and reasonable. This contrast is used deliberately to create psychological pressure and encourage the other party to concede to the “reasonable” negotiator (Good Cop).

Why it matters:
The contrast between the two roles creates emotional relief and often pushes the other party to concede to the “reasonable” negotiator. When used against you, this tactic can extract concessions that are not economically justified. A skilled negotiator identifies the tactic early and refocuses the discussion on issues, facts, and objective criteria rather than personalities.

Practical example:
One manager adopts a hard stance and threatens to walk away from the deal, while another steps in with a more conciliatory tone and suggests a compromise. The contrast makes the second manager’s proposal appear reasonable, increasing the likelihood that the other party will concede.

Related Words: Tactics

H

Highball / Lowball

What it is:
Highball and lowball are anchoring tactics where a negotiator deliberately starts with an extreme opening offer—high for a seller or low for a buyer—to shift expectations and set a favorable reference point for the negotiation.

Why it matters:
Extreme opening offers can significantly influence the final outcome by anchoring the discussion, even if the offer is later adjusted. However, if the opening lacks credibility, it can damage trust, provoke resistance, or cause the other party to disengage.

Practical example:
A seller opens negotiations by quoting ₹1,200 per unit for a product they expect to sell at around ₹1,000. After several rounds of discussion, the final agreement settles at ₹1,050—still higher than what might have been achieved without the initial high anchor.

I

Integrative Negotiation

What it is:
Also known as interest based negotiation, it is an approach to negotiation focused on expanding total value rather than simply dividing a fixed pie. It involves negotiating parties moving from the positions to exploring each others interests, motivations and concerns to collaboratively find the win-win solution.

Why it matters:
Integrative negotiation enables sustainable, win–win outcomes and strengthens long-term relationships. It enables both the parties gain more than what they would have got just by compromising on their positions.

Practical example:
A buyer and supplier move beyond price discussions and identify different priorities. The buyer values cost predictability, while the supplier values volume stability. By agreeing to a longer-term contract with committed volumes in exchange for a stable, lower price, both sides improve their outcomes compared to a price-only negotiation.

Related words: Distributive Negotiation, Interests

Interests

What it is:
Interests are the underlying needs, motivations, concerns, or objectives that drive a party’s stated position in a negotiation. They explain why someone wants a particular outcome, not just what they are asking for.

Why it matters:
Negotiations are rarely resolved by debating positions alone. When negotiators uncover and address interests, they open up multiple pathways to agreement and create opportunities for value creation that are not visible at the positional level.

Practical example:
A buyer demands a lower price (position), but the underlying interest is budget predictability for the financial year. Addressing that interest through price stability or longer-term contracts may resolve the negotiation without reducing headline price.

Related Words: Integrative Negotiation, Positions

L

Labelling

What it is:
Labelling is a negotiation and communication technique where you explicitly name or acknowledge the other party’s emotions, concerns, or perceptions in a neutral and non-judgmental way. It involves stating what the other party seems to be feeling or experiencing, without assigning blame or intent.

Why it matters:
When people feel understood, defensiveness reduces and trust increases. Labelling helps diffuse emotional tension, encourages openness, and often prompts the other party to correct, confirm, or expand on what truly matters to them. Used well, it keeps negotiations constructive even in difficult situations.

Practical example:
A negotiator says, “It sounds like you’re under a lot of pressure to control costs this quarter,” prompting the other party to explain their constraints more openly and shifting the discussion toward problem-solving.

Related Words: Mirroring

Leverage

What it is:
Leverage is the ability to influence the outcome of a negotiation in your favor. It comes from factors such as strong alternatives, control over scarce resources, information, timing, authority, or reduced dependence on the other party.

Why it matters:
Leverage determines how much flexibility or pressure you can apply without damaging the negotiation. Contrary to popular belief, leverage is not about dominance or aggression—it is about having options. Negotiators with leverage can resist unfavorable terms, set clearer boundaries, and negotiate with greater confidence.

Practical example:
A buyer negotiating with a supplier has already secured a reliable alternate source and knows market prices are declining. This leverage allows the buyer to push for better pricing and terms without fear of supply disruption.

Limited Authority

What it is:
Limited authority is a negotiation tactic where a party claims that they do not have full decision-making power and that final approval rests with someone else. This may be genuine or deliberately used as a strategy.

Why it matters:
Limited authority is often used to delay commitments, reduce pressure to concede, or extract last-minute concessions after terms appear agreed. If not recognised, it can lead to repeated renegotiation and erosion of value. Skilled negotiators clarify decision rights early and avoid making concessions without reciprocal commitment.

Practical example:
After agreeing on price and terms, a supplier says, “I’ll need to get final approval from my management.” They later return requesting an additional concession, using limited authority to reopen the negotiation.

Logrolling

What it is:
Logrolling is a negotiation technique where parties trade concessions across different issues based on their relative priorities. Each side concedes on issues that matter less to them in exchange for gains on issues they value more.

Why it matters:
Logrolling is a core mechanism of value creation in negotiation. It allows negotiators to move beyond win–lose outcomes by recognising that not all issues are equally important to both sides. When used well, it increases joint value and leads to more durable, mutually satisfying agreements.

Practical example:
A buyer places high importance on shorter delivery lead times, while the supplier prioritises larger order quantities. By agreeing to higher volumes in exchange for faster delivery, both parties achieve outcomes that matter most to them.

Related Words: Concessions

M

MESO (Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers)

What it is:
MESO is a negotiation technique where one party presents two or more offers at the same time, all of which are of equal value to them but differ in structure across multiple issues such as price, volume, risk, or timing.

Why it matters:
Presenting multiple equivalent offers helps uncover the other party’s true priorities without forcing direct disclosure. It reduces positional bargaining, encourages collaborative problem-solving, and prevents the negotiation from getting stuck on a single offer. MESO also signals flexibility without making unilateral concessions.

Practical example:
A supplier presents three options to a buyer:

1. a lower price with higher volume commitment,

2. a moderate price with shorter contract duration, and

3. a slightly higher price with faster payment terms.
   The buyer’s preference reveals which issues matter most, allowing both sides to move toward a mutually beneficial agreement.

Mirroring

What it is:
Mirroring is a negotiation technique where you subtly repeat the last few words or key phrase spoken by the other party, often in a questioning or neutral tone. The purpose is not imitation, but to encourage the other person to continue speaking and clarify their thoughts.

Why it matters:
Mirroring signals active listening and makes the other party feel heard, which lowers resistance and builds rapport. It also prompts people to expand on their statements, often revealing additional information, assumptions, or underlying interests without you having to ask direct questions.

Practical example:
When a supplier says, “We’re struggling to commit to those timelines,” the negotiator responds, “Struggling to commit to the timelines?” This encourages the supplier to explain the real constraints—such as capacity or supplier dependencies—providing valuable insight for problem-solving.

Related Words: Labelling

Multi-Issue Negotiation

What it is:
Multi-issue negotiation is a negotiation approach where parties discuss and negotiate across several variables simultaneously, such as price, volume, timelines, risk, service levels, and contract duration, rather than focusing on a single issue.

Why it matters:
Negotiating multiple issues creates opportunities for trade-offs and value creation. It helps move discussions away from zero-sum, price-only bargaining and enables solutions that better satisfy both parties’ priorities. Multi-issue negotiations also reduce deadlocks by providing alternative paths to agreement.

Practical example:
Instead of negotiating only on price, a buyer and supplier discuss price, order volumes, delivery schedules, payment terms, and warranty coverage together, allowing each side to concede on lower-priority issues in exchange for gains on what matters most.

N

Negotiation Style

What it is:
Negotiation style refers to the characteristic way an individual approaches negotiation situations. It reflects a combination of attitudes, behaviors, and tendencies—such as how assertive or cooperative a negotiator is, how they handle conflict, and how they balance relationship and results.

Why it matters:
A negotiator’s style influences communication, trust, and outcomes. Overreliance on a single style can limit effectiveness, especially when the context or counterpart changes. Skilled negotiators understand their natural style and adapt it to the situation, the stakes involved, and the other party’s approach.

Practical example:
A manager who typically adopts a competitive style may consciously shift to a more collaborative style when negotiating a long-term partnership, focusing on shared goals and mutual gains rather than short-term advantage.

Negotiation Jujitsu

What it is:
Negotiation jujitsu is an approach that focuses on deflecting pressure rather than resisting it directly. Instead of counter-attacking aggressive tactics, the negotiator redirects the other party’s energy toward problem-solving, objective criteria, and interests. The concept is popularised in Getting to Yes.

Why it matters:
Directly confronting aggression often escalates conflict and hardens positions. Negotiation jujitsu helps negotiators stay calm, avoid personal clashes, and keep discussions constructive. By refusing to engage in positional battles, it preserves relationships while still protecting outcomes.

Practical example:
When a supplier says, “This is our final offer—take it or leave it,” instead of arguing, the buyer responds, “Help me understand how you arrived at this figure,” and shifts the discussion to market benchmarks and cost drivers. The pressure is redirected without confrontation.

Nibbling

What it is:
Nibbling is a negotiation tactic where one party asks for small additional concessions after the main terms of the agreement appear to be settled. These requests are typically framed as minor or “last-minute” adjustments.

Why it matters:
Because psychological commitment to the deal is already high, negotiators often agree to nibbling requests to avoid reopening discussions or risking the agreement. Over time, these small add-ons can significantly erode value if they are not tracked or traded.

Practical example:
After finalising price and delivery terms, a customer asks for free installation or extended warranty support, presenting it as a small favour rather than reopening the negotiation.

Related Words: Tactics

O

What it is:
Objective criteria are independent, verifiable standards used to evaluate proposals in a negotiation. These standards are external to the parties and may include market benchmarks, industry indices, cost models, legal standards, or historical data.

Why it matters:
Using objective criteria shifts negotiations away from personal opinions, power plays, or emotional arguments. It helps establish fairness, reduces conflict, and makes agreements easier to justify internally. Objective criteria are especially valuable in difficult or high-stakes negotiations.

Practical example:
A supplier justifies a price increase by referencing a published commodity index showing a sustained rise in raw material costs, rather than relying on subjective claims or pressure tactics.

Objective Criteria

Offer

What it is:
An offer is a proposal made by one party in a negotiation that outlines specific terms intended to resolve one or more issues. An offer may cover price, scope, timelines, responsibilities, risks, or other negotiated elements.

Why it matters:
Offers shape the direction and pace of a negotiation. A well-structured offer clarifies expectations, anchors the discussion, and signals seriousness. Poorly framed offers, on the other hand, can invite misinterpretation, unnecessary counteroffers, or stall progress.

Practical example:
A supplier submits an offer proposing a price of ₹95 per unit, a minimum order quantity of 10,000 units, 60-day payment terms, and a one-year contract duration, inviting the buyer to respond with acceptance or a counteroffer.

Related Words: Counter-offer

P

Package Deal

What it is:
A package deal is a negotiation approach where multiple issues are bundled together and discussed as a single, integrated proposal rather than negotiated item by item.

Why it matters:
Package deals prevent cherry-picking and encourage trade-offs across issues. By evaluating the agreement as a whole, negotiators can balance concessions and gains more effectively, protect overall value, and avoid giving away benefits without receiving something in return.

Practical example:
Instead of negotiating price alone, a supplier proposes a package that includes a slightly lower price, higher order volumes, longer contract duration, and faster payment terms—asking the buyer to accept or counter the entire bundle rather than individual elements.

Position

What it is:
A position is what a party explicitly states they want in a negotiation. It is the visible demand, proposal, or stance that is communicated to the other side, often expressed as a specific number, condition, or outcome.

Why it matters:
Positions are easy to argue but hard to reconcile because they often conflict directly. Focusing only on positions can lead to deadlocks and win–lose outcomes. Skilled negotiators look beyond positions to uncover the underlying interests that explain why the position is being taken.

Practical example:
A buyer states, “We need a 10% price reduction.” This is a position. The underlying interest may be cost predictability, budget constraints, or pressure to meet internal targets—factors that could be addressed in multiple ways beyond price alone.

Related Words: Interests

Powers in Negotiation

What it is:
Power in negotiation is the ability to influence the outcome in your favor. It does not come from authority alone, but from a combination of factors such as strong alternatives, access to information, control over resources, timing, credibility, and reduced dependence on the other party.

Why it matters:
Power shapes how much pressure you can apply, how firmly you can hold your position, and how confidently you can walk away. Importantly, power is often perceived rather than absolute. Skilled negotiators understand where their power comes from, how it may shift during the negotiation, and how to strengthen it without damaging relationships.

Practical example:
A buyer negotiating a long-term supply contract knows that demand in the market is soft and has qualified alternative suppliers. This combination of market timing and alternatives gives the buyer greater power to push for better pricing and terms, even if the supplier is larger or more established.

Preparation in Negotiation

What it is:
Preparation in negotiation is the structured thinking and analysis done before entering a negotiation. It includes clarifying objectives, understanding interests on both sides, defining BATNA and reservation points, planning concessions, and anticipating possible scenarios.

Why it matters:
Preparation is one of the strongest predictors of negotiation success. Well-prepared negotiators are less reactive, make fewer emotional concessions, and are better able to steer discussions rather than respond to pressure. Poor preparation often leads to improvisation, which can feel confident but usually results in loss of value.

Practical example:
Before negotiating a supplier contract, a procurement manager prepares by identifying alternative suppliers, defining acceptable price limits, listing tradable issues such as volumes and payment terms, and planning responses to likely objections—allowing them to negotiate calmly and strategically.

Probing in Negotiation

What it is:
Probing in negotiation refers to the deliberate use of questions to uncover information, clarify positions, and reveal underlying interests, constraints, and priorities of the other party. Effective probing relies on open-ended, neutral, and curiosity-driven questions rather than interrogation.

Why it matters:
Negotiators rarely disclose their real priorities voluntarily. Probing helps move the discussion beyond stated positions and assumptions, reduces uncertainty, and creates opportunities for value creation. Without effective probing, negotiators risk making concessions blindly or negotiating against false constraints.

Practical example:
Instead of reacting to a price demand, a negotiator asks, “What factors are driving this requirement?” or “How does this constraint affect your internal goals?” These questions help, uncover whether the issue is budget timing, cash flow, risk, or performance expectations.

Related Words: Labelling, Mirroring

R

Rapport Building

What it is:
Rapport building is the process of establishing mutual trust, comfort, and connection between negotiating parties. It involves creating a positive interpersonal climate through genuine interest, respectful communication, and attentive listening, rather than through manipulation or superficial charm.

Why it matters:
Negotiations are conducted between people, not just positions. Strong rapport reduces defensiveness, improves information sharing, and makes it easier to address difficult issues without escalation. When rapport is weak, even reasonable proposals may be resisted; when rapport is strong, parties are more willing to collaborate and problem-solve.

Practical example:
Before discussing terms, a negotiator engages in brief, genuine conversation about shared experiences or current business challenges, listens attentively, and acknowledges the other party’s perspective—setting a constructive tone for the negotiation that follows.

Related Words: Mirroring

Reframing

What it is:
Reframing is the act of changing how an issue, proposal, or situation is presented so that it is viewed from a different—and often more constructive—perspective. Instead of debating positions directly, reframing shifts the conversation toward interests, value, or problem-solving.

Why it matters:
Reframing helps break deadlocks, reduce defensiveness, and move negotiations away from win–lose arguments. By changing the lens through which an issue is viewed, negotiators can uncover new options and guide the discussion toward mutually acceptable solutions without escalating conflict.

Practical example:
When a buyer rejects a price increase, the supplier reframes the discussion from “higher price” to “total cost of ownership,” highlighting improved reliability, lower downtime, and reduced lifecycle costs—changing how value is evaluated rather than arguing the number itself.

Related Words: Framing

Reservation Point

What it is:
The reservation point is the worst acceptable outcome a negotiator is willing to accept before walking away from a deal. Beyond this point, reaching an agreement is no longer better than pursuing the alternative.

Why it matters:
The reservation point sets a firm boundary in negotiation and protects against accepting value-destroying agreements. Knowing it in advance prevents emotional decision-making under pressure and helps negotiators stay disciplined, especially when facing deadlines or aggressive tactics.

Practical example:
A buyer is willing to pay up to ₹100 per unit for a component. If the supplier insists on ₹102 or more, the buyer walks away and activates an alternate sourcing option, rather than accepting a deal worse than their predefined limit.

Related Words: Walk-away Point, BATNA, WATNA, ZOPA

S

Salami Tactic

What it is:
The salami tactic is a negotiation approach where a large demand is broken down into many small, incremental requests. Each individual request appears minor and reasonable on its own, making it easier for the other party to agree step by step.

Why it matters:
While each concession may seem insignificant, the cumulative effect can be substantial. If negotiators do not track total concessions, they may unintentionally give away far more value than intended. The tactic works because people tend to evaluate requests individually rather than as a whole.

Practical example:
After agreeing on price, a customer asks for free delivery. Once accepted, they request extended payment terms, followed by additional reporting or support—each framed as a small adjustment, but together significantly increasing the cost to the supplier.

Related Words: Tactics

Silence

What it is:
Silence is the deliberate use of pauses instead of immediate responses during a negotiation. Rather than filling the gap with words, the negotiator intentionally withholds reaction to create space.

Why it matters:
Silence creates psychological discomfort and often shifts pressure to the other party. People tend to fill silence by explaining, justifying, or improving their offer. Used skillfully, silence prevents reactive concessions and helps the negotiator gather more information without saying anything.

Practical example:
After receiving an offer, a negotiator remains silent for a few seconds instead of responding immediately. Feeling the discomfort, the other party begins to explain their position and may voluntarily soften or revise the offer.

Snow Job

What it is:
A snow job is a negotiation tactic where one party overwhelms the other with excessive information, technical jargon, data, or lengthy explanations to confuse, distract, or fatigue them, making it harder to challenge proposals or make clear decisions.

Why it matters:
When negotiators feel overloaded or confused, they may disengage, defer decisions, or concede simply to move the discussion forward. Snow jobs shift the balance of control away from substance and toward complexity. Skilled negotiators recognise this tactic and slow the conversation rather than reacting under pressure.

Practical example:
During contract negotiations, a supplier presents dozens of detailed slides filled with technical specifications and complex cost breakdowns. Instead of engaging with every detail, a skilled buyer pauses the discussion and asks for a simplified summary of the key cost drivers before proceeding.

Related Words: Tactics

What it is:
Split the difference is a negotiation approach where parties propose meeting halfway between two opposing positions, typically to reach agreement quickly or appear fair.

Why it matters:
While splitting the difference feels reasonable, it can be misleading. The midpoint may still be unacceptable to one party or ignore underlying interests and value differences. Relying on this approach can reward extreme opening positions and discourage thoughtful problem-solving.

Practical example:
A buyer offers ₹90 per unit and the seller asks for ₹110. Proposing to settle at ₹100 may seem fair, but if the buyer’s reservation point is ₹95, the midpoint still results in a poor outcome despite appearing balanced.

Related Words: Tactics

Split the Difference

T

Tactics

What it is:
Tactics are specific actions, behaviors, or techniques used during a negotiation to influence the other party’s perceptions, decisions, or concessions. Tactics operate at the execution level of negotiation and include methods such as anchoring, silence, salami tactics, good cop–bad cop, or nibbling.

Why it matters:
Tactics shape the moment-to-moment dynamics of a negotiation. When used thoughtfully and ethically, they help negotiators manage pressure, gather information, and steer discussions productively. When used blindly or manipulatively, tactics can damage trust, escalate conflict, or backfire. Skilled negotiators recognise tactics—both their own and the other party’s—and choose responses deliberately rather than reacting instinctively.

Practical example:
During a price discussion, a negotiator deliberately uses silence after receiving an offer, prompting the other party to justify their position and make an improved proposal without any direct counterargument.

Related Words: Bogey Tactic, Decoy Tactic, Flinch Tactic, Good Cop Bad Cop, Highball / Lowball, Nibbling, Salami Tactic, Split the Difference, Take it or Leave it

Tactical Empathy

What it is:
Tactical empathy is the deliberate practice of understanding and acknowledging the other party’s emotions, perspectives, and constraints in order to influence the negotiation constructively. It is not agreement or sympathy, but a strategic effort to demonstrate understanding without necessarily conceding.

Why it matters:
People are more open, cooperative, and flexible when they feel understood. Tactical empathy reduces defensiveness, builds trust, and encourages information sharing. Skilled negotiators use it to lower emotional barriers and guide discussions toward problem-solving rather than confrontation.

Practical example:
A negotiator says, “It sounds like you’re under pressure to control costs this quarter,” before discussing pricing options. Feeling understood, the other party explains their internal constraints, creating space to explore alternatives such as phased pricing or volume commitments instead of a simple price cut.

Related Words: Accusation Audit

Take it or Leave it

What it is:
Take-it-or-leave-it is a negotiation approach where one party presents an offer as final and non-negotiable, leaving the other party with only two options: accept the offer as stated or walk away.

Why it matters:
This approach is often used to assert power, create urgency, or shut down further discussion. While it can be effective when a party has strong leverage or clear alternatives, it also risks breaking trust, ending dialogue, or missing opportunities for value creation. Skilled negotiators recognise when such statements are genuine versus tactical.

Practical example:
A supplier states, “This is our final price—there’s no room for further discussion.” The buyer must then decide whether the offer is better than their BATNA or whether walking away is the wiser option.

Related Words: Tactics

Trade-off

What it is:
A trade-off is an exchange in which one party gives up something of lower value to them in return for something of higher value from the other party. Trade-offs are the fundamental building blocks of negotiated agreements.

Why it matters:
Effective negotiations are not about winning individual points but about making intelligent exchanges. Trade-offs enable value creation, prevent one-sided concessions, and help negotiators reach agreements that better reflect each party’s true priorities.

Practical example:
A supplier agrees to a lower unit price in exchange for a longer contract term and predictable order volumes, trading margin for stability while the buyer gains cost savings.

Timing

What it is:
Timing in negotiation refers to choosing the right moment to raise issues, make offers, push for concessions, pause discussions, or close the deal. It is not about speed alone, but about when actions are taken relative to pressure, readiness, and context.

Why it matters:
The same proposal can succeed or fail depending on timing. Poor timing can trigger resistance, defensiveness, or premature concessions, while good timing increases receptiveness and leverage. Skilled negotiators read situational cues—such as urgency, fatigue, deadlines, or eagerness to close—and adjust their moves accordingly.

Practical example:
A negotiator delays pushing for better terms until the other party signals a strong desire to close before a deadline. Sensing this urgency, they raise additional requests at a moment when the other side is more willing to agree.

Trial Balloon

What it is:
A trial balloon is an informal or tentative proposal floated during a negotiation to test the other party’s reaction without making a firm commitment. It is usually phrased hypothetically and allows the negotiator to explore possibilities safely.

Why it matters:
Trial balloons help negotiators gauge priorities, resistance, and flexibility without risking credibility or locking themselves into a position. They are especially useful when uncertainty is high or when introducing new ideas that may face pushback.

Practical example:
A negotiator says, “If we were to look at a longer contract duration, how would that affect pricing?” The response helps assess openness to trade-offs before making a formal offer.

V

Value Claiming

What it is:
Value claiming is the part of negotiation focused on securing the largest possible share of the value available in a deal for yourself or your organization. It typically occurs after value has been created or identified and involves deciding how that value is divided.

Why it matters:
Creating value without claiming it can leave negotiators dissatisfied or vulnerable to exploitation. At the same time, aggressive value claiming without regard for relationships or fairness can damage trust and future collaboration. Effective negotiators balance value claiming with value creation to achieve strong yet sustainable outcomes.

Practical example:
After agreeing on a structure that expands total value through longer contract duration and higher volumes, a supplier negotiates to secure better pricing or margin protection, ensuring they capture a fair share of the value created.

Value Creation

What it is:
Value creation in negotiation refers to the process of expanding the total benefits available to all parties before deciding how those benefits are divided. It focuses on identifying differences in priorities, constraints, and capabilities to generate outcomes that are better than a simple win–lose split.

Why it matters:
Many negotiations fail or become adversarial because parties focus too early on dividing value rather than creating it. By first expanding the pie, negotiators increase the chances of reaching agreements that meet core interests, strengthen relationships, and produce more durable outcomes. Value creation is especially critical in long-term or strategic negotiations.

Practical example:
A buyer and supplier move beyond price discussions and identify opportunities to jointly improve forecasting and reduce inventory risk. The resulting cost savings increase total value, which is then shared through better pricing for the buyer and improved margins for the supplier.

W

What it is:
The walk-away point is the point in a negotiation at which continuing the discussion no longer makes sense because the proposed deal is worse than your best alternative. It represents the moment you decide to exit the negotiation rather than accept unfavorable terms.

Why it matters:
Knowing your walk-away point in advance protects you from making emotional or pressure-driven decisions. It enforces discipline, preserves long-term value, and prevents you from agreeing to deals that undermine your objectives or economics. Negotiators who lack clarity on their walk-away point are far more likely to overconcede under time pressure or escalation.

Practical example:
A buyer has determined that any price above ₹102 per unit is worse than sourcing from an alternate supplier. When the seller insists on ₹105 despite multiple discussions, the buyer ends the negotiation and activates the alternate option instead of accepting a value-destroying deal.

Related Words: Reservation Point

Walk-Away Point

WATNA (Worst Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)

What it is:
WATNA refers to the worst possible outcome you could face if a negotiation fails and no agreement is reached. It represents the most unfavorable alternative scenario, assuming things go badly after walking away.

Why it matters:
While BATNA defines your strength, WATNA highlights your risk. Understanding your WATNA helps negotiators realistically assess downside exposure and avoid overconfidence. It is especially useful in high-stakes negotiations where walking away may have serious consequences, and it encourages thoughtful preparation rather than blind optimism.

Practical example:
A supplier negotiating a major contract knows that if the deal fails, their WATNA includes idle production capacity, layoffs, and revenue loss. Being aware of this downside risk influences how firmly they negotiate and which concessions they are willing to consider to avoid that outcome.

Related Words: BATNA, ZOPA

Win - Lose Negotiation

What it is:
Win–lose negotiation is an approach where one party’s gain is perceived to come directly at the expense of the other party. The focus is on claiming the largest possible share of a fixed amount of value, often treating the negotiation as a zero-sum game.

Why it matters:
Win–lose negotiations can be effective in short-term, transactional, or one-off situations where ongoing relationships are not critical. However, overreliance on this approach often leads to damaged trust, reduced information sharing, and limited future collaboration. It also increases the likelihood of retaliation or renegotiation later.

Practical example:
A buyer pressures a supplier to accept the lowest possible price in a one-time purchase without considering service levels, long-term partnership, or sustainability. The buyer “wins” on price, but the supplier compensates later by reducing service quality or deprioritising the account.

Win - Win Negotiation

What it is:
Win–win negotiation is an approach where parties seek outcomes that satisfy the key interests of both sides, rather than focusing solely on who gains more. The emphasis is on collaboration, problem-solving, and creating value before deciding how it is shared.

Why it matters:
Win–win negotiations lead to more sustainable agreements, stronger relationships, and higher commitment to implementation. By addressing underlying interests instead of rigid positions, negotiators reduce conflict and uncover solutions that would not emerge in a purely competitive, win–lose approach.

Practical example:
A buyer and supplier move beyond price discussions and identify ways to reduce demand variability and inventory risk through better forecasting. The resulting cost savings allow the buyer to secure better pricing while the supplier benefits from more stable production and improved margins.

Z

ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement)

What it is:
ZOPA is the range within which both parties’ acceptable outcomes overlap, making a negotiated agreement possible. It exists when the buyer’s maximum willingness to pay is higher than the seller’s minimum willingness to accept.

Why it matters:
ZOPA defines whether a deal is possible at all. If no ZOPA exists, no amount of persuasion or negotiation skill will produce a sustainable agreement unless underlying conditions change. Understanding ZOPA helps negotiators avoid wasted effort and focus on creating or expanding overlap.

Practical example:
A buyer is willing to pay up to ₹100 for a product, while the seller is willing to accept no less than ₹90. The ₹90–₹100 range represents the ZOPA, within which a mutually acceptable agreement can be reached.

Related Words: BATNA, WATNA