Often, when preparing for a negotiation, someone on our team will suggest we figure out “who will be the good cop, and who will be the bad cop.”
Most people have seen the dramatic portrayal of negotiations in television and movies and assume those transfer over to real life. The “good cop/bad cop” tactic, usually seen in police interrogations to squeeze information from a recalcitrant suspect, seems to novice negotiators like the most basic method to use to break the other side and get what we want.
Sure, I’ll be unreasonable and smack the client around, and you be the nice one to get them to cooperate. What a great way to get more business!
Yes, there are a few problems with good cop/bad cop in business deals:
* We’re not negotiating like “cops” with a potential felon. We’re negotiating like business people with our client to create value for their business.
* We’re not trying to “break” anyone. What we want is collaboration and discovery of how we can optimize the outcome for both parties.
* The tactic, which may be effective for its purpose when handled well, destroys trust in the relationship, which no one wants to do with their client
The fundamental issue with using good cop/bad cop in a business negotiation is that it is founded on deception and fear. Neither of those are useful elements in building a trusted relationship.
Does that mean I’ve never used it in a negotiation? Obviously, no. I have used variations on it when we have to resolve an issue with a difficult party. What I have seen more often are efforts to use it on me by the other party to coerce me into agreeing to a demand that lacks legitimacy. It often sounds like this:
Good cop: “Look, John, we just need this last concession to satisfy my boss. If I have to say you won’t agree, he’s likely to blow this whole deal up!”
Note the specter of the “bad cop” boss who will wipe out all our hard work if I don’t say “yes” to an illegitimate ask. The hope is I will capitulate to the “good cop” rather than roll the dice with this seemingly unpredictable and angry “bad cop” manager.
What I think: “Yeeaaahhhh… except your boss doesn’t have the authority to blow this deal up.”
What I say: “This sounds like an important issue for you, Chris, and it is important for us as well. Making this change will affect the integrity of our solution. We will have to reduce the savings projections for the transformation. So we’ve done all we can do.”
Why I say that:
First, I have done my homework. The deal is being driven from the C-suite and has already been announced to the board. Only the deal sponsor can “blow it up.”
Second, I must acknowledge the importance of the issue to them so they know I am paying attention and focused on their interests.
Third, I make no reference to the fact that this manager lacks the power to stop the deal. Why step on someone’s pride and trigger negative emotions?
Finally, I want the client to know that me saying “yes” actually hurts them because it impacts the outcome leadership wants. Me saying “no” is in their best interests.
Good cop/bad cop is also premised on the notion that the tactic is being done to someone without the power to resist. In movies, the abusive cops are shouting at the individual whose only options are to talk or go to jail. But in some movies, the person being questioned reacts with calm. Why? Because the threat of the bad cop has no teeth. The person in the interrogation room has an alibi or knows something the detectives don’t know.
That’s the part of the movie that can translate to real life: Preparing for the worst potential discussion you can have with the other party, and how you will react. Do you have a strong BATNA? Do they have a weak BATNA?
Most negotiation tactics can be dulled with good preparation, and an understanding of the other party’s interests and alternatives such that you know what the bad cop actually has the power to do. That allows you to be that calm person in the interrogation room.
