Style 1: The 'Tough' Negotiator

Some of you might be intimidated by this style, others excited by it. Let’s start by describing what we mean by ‘tough’.

Their Beliefs, Goals and Success Criteria

Tough negotiators are somewhat egotistic in that they believe that they know best. They have their own view of what is fair, what is right and thus seek to impose their ideas and will on others. The irony is that they don’t always know that they are acting in this way – it can be just the way they are as people.

Their success criteria will be to gain as much and as many of their tangible and emotional needs and wants as possible, exchanging the absolute minimum in return.  They care little for what others think of them.

Their Cultural Fit

This is straightforward: They disregard others’ cultural needs – unless it serves their purpose.

Their Words and Voice

This person is not always courteous or polite – quite the opposite in fact. So, don’t expect too many words like ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ – and don’t be surprised if a few swear words creep in to the discussion.

Their favourite words are: ‘I want’, ‘I need’, ‘I expect’, ‘I demand …’
It is likely that they will seek to undermine others, typically stereotyping or patronizing them: ‘You junior managers need to listen to your seniors …’

Their voice will be forceful, threatening, perhaps shouting and often be the loudest voice in the room. It could also be a very deliberate and authoritative tone and pace of voice.

Their Body Language

So how might the tough negotiator act?
Well, their theme of intimidation can carry through to their body language in all sorts of ways from overt to the subtlest of application. They are, however, unlikely to use all the following behaviours at the same time:

• We each need physical space – how much space depends on our relationships, our working environment and our culture. So, you would ‘allow’ someone you care about to get physically closer to you than a total stranger – just as you would in a noisy environment, so you can hear each other speak. A tough negotiator, however, abuses and invades others’ personal space without permission or cause.
• They aim for their eye level to be the higher, forcing others to literally 'look up’ to them. The exception here is if they seek to show their ‘authority’ in a different way – perhaps being the only person sitting or using a larger and more comfortable chair.
• If choosing a seat at a table, they would select either the one opposite the other party (confrontation) or at the head of the table (‘I’m in charge here’).
• When others are talking, tough negotiators are quite likely to look away (showing disinterest), fidget, shake their head or somehow show exacerbation at their comments – perhaps by rolling their eyes.
• Tough negotiators might point their finger, lean forward, stare or threaten.

Their Tactics

There are many potential tactics that tough negotiators might use – consciously or otherwise:

• Dishonesty. Yes, they lie!
• Withholding information and/or knowledge.
• Power plays – ‘I know your boss personally.’ (This could be true – but it may not be.)
• Quoting third parties or sources. They might quote an obscure law, trusting it will not be checked. Such quotes may be inaccurate.
• Seeking a higher authority (thus demeaning yours) – ‘if you can’t agree, then I’ll take it to someone who can’.
• Stubbornness (repeating their demands in the belief that you will give in).
• Claiming reasonableness (when they are not being so).
• Refusing to listen.
• Refusing to let others speak.
• Refusing to speak.
• Moving the goalposts – if they aren’t succeeding, they might approach it from a different angle (but have the same agenda).
• Demanding a concession at the last minute which could change the ‘balance’ of an agreement.
• Threats and bluffs.
• Shuffling or packing away their papers to suggest they are giving up (in the face of your ‘unreasonableness’).
• Abruptly ending negotiations (hanging up the telephone, storming out of meetings, etc.).

The Upside… and the Downside

Tough negotiators are singularly focused to win – to get what they need and want. They may well be seen – especially in the short term – as highly successful by their peers and the organization they represent.

Their preparation time is limited because they will only put their effort into researching their own needs and wants, which they have no need to prioritise (because they want it all).

The only research undertaken in respect of the other parties will be to identify their weaknesses. They aim to complete negotiations relatively fast.

The downside includes:

• An agreement may never be reached – especially if two ‘tough’ negotiators come face-to-face.
• The basis of the negotiation will probably be on inflated demands, making it difficult to move them to a point of ‘reasonableness’.
• Any agreement may stall on implementation because any other party will see little benefit in ‘doing their bit’.
• Their ability to encourage the parties back to the negotiating table in the future is severely diminished.

When is Tough Appropriate?

Despite the downside, there can be times when toughness is appropriate.

Consider which of these scenarios would warrant being ‘tough’:

• Governments threatening with war as being the only way to secure ultimate peace.
• A tough managerial style being the only way to avoid bankruptcy.
• Parents refusing their child yet another chocolate bar, despite the threat of tears and tantrums.
• At a market, arguing until a price is as low as possible irrespective of what others think.