116
A SHORT COURSE IN INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATING
have to admit that it depends primarily on whether they’re working for us or against us. Aggression only bothers us when we’re on the receiving end. Aggressive tactics can run the gamut from arriving early for meetings to calling counterparts at home to discuss business. It literally means “to attack” and demands that you take the initiative when dealing with the opposition. It shouldn’t be confused with tactics of intimidation, whose main design is to cause fear. The goal of aggressive behavior during negotiations is to control the time and the place of discussions. PASSIVITY
Many people respond to aggression or intimidation with docility in the hope that brief appeasement will lead to less demanding behavior. This is very reactive. In proactive negotiations, passivity can be a way to convince opponents that everything is going their way until parts of the topic deemed important reach the table. A sudden change of tactics by the Passive side at this point will leave their counterparts “enveloped.” This is a useful tactic against an opponent who has confused confidence with ego. It can never be used for long, and it must be used in tandem with a reasonable tactic (e.g., Pragmatism or Impassivity) so as not to appear irrational. It’s also a tactic that requires a great deal of emotional restraint, due to the often overbearing attitude of the type of opponent on whom it is most effective. IMPASSIVITY
As mentioned earlier, it’s never wise to state that a topic is non-negotiable. But this isn’t to say that one can’t take a hard line on an issue that is particularly important to acquiring “enough.” Although it calls for a good deal of nonchalant behavior, even the most Social of strategists can call upon Impassivity as a tactic. It also requires that the tactician be operating from a position of strength (strong buying or high-demand selling), even if it’s just for a single point of the agenda. In practice, it involves reticence and indifference until the opposition has stated their position. Once this has been accomplished, an attitude of “is this the best you can do?” is maintained until all possibilities are exhausted. It’s not until the end of the process that the tactician will actually state what it is they need or want from this portion of the negotiations. By doing this, they avoid granting concessions the opposition wasn’t expecting to receive or gaining more than the opposition had hoped to give. E X A M P L E : China’s Aggressive style during 1984 negotiations with Great Britain used Impassive tactics when discussing terms for the return of Kowloon and the New Territories. Unexpectedly, Great Britain offered to return Hong Kong Island as well (which had never been leased but had been granted in perpetuity). China’s Aggressive strategy had implied that Hong Kong Island would be taken by force, but their refusal to state it outright led to the concession via Impassivity. INTIMIDATION
Using Intimidation as a tactic usually occurs when one side feels they’ve been backed into a corner on an issue that’s very important to their strategy. Unable to win the concession by means of discussion, they attempt to do so by threat. This has worked in commercial negotiations of all types for centuries. It does have two requirements for effective use. First, the threat must be believable even if you have no
