What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
Key Takeaway: Tricky bargaining tactics — deliberate deception, psychological warfare, and positional pressure — are one-sided proposals about procedure that fail the test of reciprocity; counter them by recognizing the tactic, naming it explicitly, and negotiating about the rules of the game using the same principled framework you apply to substance.
Chapter 8: What If They Use Dirty Tricks?
← ← Chapter 7 | Getting to Yes - Book Summary | Chapter 9 →
Summary
Fisher's final chapter in Part III addresses the ugliest reality of negotiation: opponents who lie, manipulate, intimidate, and exploit procedural tricks to gain advantage. The chapter catalogs these tactics — phony facts, ambiguous authority, good-guy/bad-guy routines, threats, extreme demands, escalating demands, lock-in tactics, calculated delays, and "take it or leave it" — and provides principled countermeasures for each.
The chapter's organizing insight is elegant: tricky bargaining tactics are not substantive moves — they are one-sided proposals about procedure. They fail the test of #reciprocity because they're designed to be used by only one side. Just as you would examine the legitimacy of a one-sided substantive proposal (Chapter 5), you can examine the legitimacy of a one-sided procedural tactic. The counter-strategy has three steps: recognize the tactic, raise it explicitly, and negotiate about the rules of the game. Fisher applies the same four principles of #principlednegotiation to the meta-negotiation over procedure: separate the people from the tactic (don't attack their character), focus on their interests in using the tactic (are they protecting themselves from criticism? maintaining internal unity?), invent options for mutual gain (propose alternative procedural arrangements), and insist on objective criteria (apply the reciprocity test: "Would you want me to do this to you?").
The taxonomy of dirty tricks has three categories. Deliberate #deception includes phony facts, ambiguous authority (letting you think they can commit when they can't, so they get a "second bite at the apple"), and dubious intentions regarding compliance. Fisher's counter for ambiguous authority is immediately practical: "Just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?" And his contingent-compliance technique for dubious intentions is devastatingly clever — if the husband's lawyer insists his client will definitely pay child support, then he won't mind a contingent agreement that gives the wife the house equity if he doesn't.
Psychological warfare includes stressful environmental manipulation (temperature, seating, noise), personal attacks (commenting on appearance, making you wait, refusing eye contact), the good-guy/bad-guy routine, and #threats. Fisher's distinction between threats and warnings is one of the chapter's most valuable contributions. Threats are actions you choose to inflict; warnings are consequences that will occur independently of your will. "If you don't agree, we'll sue" is a threat. "If we don't reach agreement, the media will likely publish this story — I don't see how we could suppress it" is a warning. Warnings are legitimate, harder to counter, and not vulnerable to escalation. This maps directly to a business context: "If we can't agree on terms, the property goes back to market tomorrow" is a warning grounded in your BATNA, not a threat designed to coerce.
Positional pressure tactics — extreme demands, escalating demands, lock-in tactics, the hardhearted partner gambit, calculated delays, and "take it or leave it" — are the most common in everyday negotiation. Fisher's dynamite truck metaphor for lock-in tactics (one driver throws the steering wheel out the window to force the other to swerve) is vivid and connects to game theory's commitment devices. The counter: interrupt the communication, deemphasize the commitment, and provide face-saving exits. "Oh, I see you told the papers your goal was to settle for $400,000. Well, we all have our aspirations."
The chapter's most important cross-book connection is to Chris Voss's tactical toolkit in Never Split the Difference. Voss would classify many of Fisher's "dirty tricks" as standard negotiation moves — extreme anchors, the Ackerman system, loss-framing, emotional pressure. The fundamental philosophical divide is that Fisher treats these tactics as illegitimate violations of good faith, while Voss treats them as the normal terrain of negotiation that a skilled practitioner must master. Fisher says: "Don't use dirty tricks; name them and negotiate about procedure." Voss says: "Understand the emotional and cognitive mechanisms behind every tactic, and deploy your own." Both perspectives are useful — Fisher's for ongoing relationships where trust matters, Voss's for high-stakes one-shot encounters where naivety is dangerous.
Fisher closes with a question that applies the reciprocity test to yourself: "Is this an approach I would use in dealing with a good friend or a member of my family? If a full account appeared in the media, would I be embarrassed?" This ethical compass, combined with the practical toolkit of recognition-naming-negotiation, makes the chapter a complete defense system against manipulative bargaining. The final line — "Don't be a victim" — is Fisher at his most assertive, reminding readers that principled doesn't mean passive.
Key Insights
Dirty Tricks Are Procedural Proposals That Fail the Reciprocity Test
This reframing is the chapter's key contribution. A dirty trick isn't just bad behavior — it's a one-sided rule about how the negotiation should work, imposed without consent. The good-guy/bad-guy routine is a procedural proposal that only one side should manipulate the other's emotions. Extreme demands are a procedural proposal that only one side should anchor outrageously. Applying the reciprocity test ("Would you want me to do this to you?") immediately exposes the illegitimacy of any tactic.Recognize, Name, Negotiate — The Three-Step Counter
Most dirty tricks work only because they're invisible. Step 1: recognize what's happening (they're using ambiguous authority, good-guy/bad-guy, deliberate delay). Step 2: name it explicitly without attacking the person ("I'm getting the feeling you and Ted are playing a good-guy/bad-guy routine"). Step 3: negotiate about the rules of the game using principled negotiation. This three-step process neutralizes most tactics without escalation.Warnings Are Legitimate; Threats Are Not
A threat is an action you choose to inflict ("We'll sue you"). A warning describes consequences that will occur independently of your will ("The media will likely publish this story"). Warnings are harder to counter, less likely to provoke escalation, and preserve the relationship. The practical rule: when communicating consequences, frame them as warnings about external realities, not threats about your chosen actions.Ambiguous Authority Is the Most Insidious Tactic
When the other side lets you believe they can commit but actually can't, they get all the benefits of your flexibility while maintaining their own rigidity. The counter is simple and should be used in every negotiation: "Just how much authority do you have?" If their authority is limited, limit yours equivalently. If they announce they need boss approval after reaching what you thought was agreement, respond: "Fine, we'll both treat this as a draft — I'll sleep on it and may propose changes too."Don't Retaliate — It Just Makes You a Positional Bargainer
The most natural response to dirty tricks is to respond in kind: if they anchor extreme, you anchor extreme; if they threaten, you counter-threaten. But this turns you into a positional bargainer, which is exactly the game Fisher has spent eight chapters arguing against. The discipline is to redirect every escalation back to the merits and to procedure — maintaining your principles is both ethically right and tactically superior.Key Frameworks
Three Categories of Tricky Tactics
(1) Deliberate deception — phony facts, ambiguous authority, dubious intentions; (2) Psychological warfare — stressful environments, personal attacks, good-guy/bad-guy, threats; (3) Positional pressure — extreme demands, escalating demands, lock-in tactics, hardhearted partner, calculated delays, "take it or leave it." Each category requires recognition, naming, and principled negotiation about procedure.Recognize → Name → Negotiate (Three-Step Counter Protocol)
The universal response to any dirty trick: (1) Recognize the tactic (is this deception, psychological pressure, or positional pressure?); (2) Raise it explicitly without attacking the person ("I notice..." or "I'm getting the feeling..."); (3) Negotiate about procedure using the four principled negotiation tools (separate people from tactic, find interests behind the tactic, propose alternative procedures, apply reciprocity test).Warnings vs. Threats Distinction
Threats: actions you choose to inflict on the other side ("We'll take you to court"). Warnings: consequences that will occur independently of your will ("The regulatory deadline passes Friday; after that, this option is off the table"). Warnings are legitimate, harder to counter, don't invite escalation, and preserve relationships. Frame consequences of no-agreement as warnings whenever possible.Contingent Compliance Agreements
When you doubt the other side will honor their commitments, build enforcement into the agreement itself rather than relying on trust. If they claim "100% certainty" of compliance, propose contingent terms: "Great — then you won't mind if we agree that failure to comply triggers [specific consequence]." Their resistance reveals whether their confidence was genuine.The Dynamite Truck (Lock-In Commitment)
Thomas Schelling's metaphor: a driver throws the steering wheel out the window to force the other driver to swerve. In negotiation, this is making a public commitment so visible that backing down becomes impossible (union leader pledging a specific number to members). Counter: interrupt the communication (pretend you didn't hear it), reinterpret it ("your goal was..."), deemphasize it, and provide face-saving exits.Direct Quotes
[!quote]
"Tricky bargaining tactics are in effect one-sided proposals about negotiating procedure."
[source:: Getting to Yes] [author:: Roger Fisher] [chapter:: 8] [theme:: dirtytricks]
[!quote]
"Warnings are much more legitimate than threats and are not vulnerable to counterthreats."
[source:: Getting to Yes] [author:: Roger Fisher] [chapter:: 8] [theme:: threats]
[!quote]
"My practice is never to yield to pressure, only to reason."
[source:: Getting to Yes] [author:: Roger Fisher] [chapter:: 8] [theme:: principlednegotiation]
[!quote]
"Less than full disclosure is not the same as deception."
[source:: Getting to Yes] [author:: Roger Fisher] [chapter:: 8] [theme:: negotiation]
[!quote]
"Don't be a victim."
[source:: Getting to Yes] [author:: Roger Fisher] [chapter:: 8] [theme:: negotiation]
Action Points
- [ ] At the start of your next significant negotiation, explicitly ask: "Just how much authority do you have in this particular negotiation?" — never assume the person across the table can make final decisions
- [ ] Prepare warnings, not threats, for your current pipeline: frame consequences of no-deal in terms of external realities (market timing, competing offers, regulatory deadlines) rather than actions you'll choose to take against them
- [ ] When you detect a dirty trick (extreme anchor, good-guy/bad-guy, escalating demands), resist the urge to retaliate — instead, name it calmly ("I notice the terms seem to shift each time we approach agreement") and redirect to procedure
- [ ] Build contingent compliance terms into your next contract: if the other side guarantees performance, make the guarantee real with specific consequences for non-performance
- [ ] Before every negotiation, ask yourself Fisher's ethical test: "Is this an approach I would use with a friend? Would I be embarrassed if a full account appeared in the media?"
Questions for Further Exploration
- Fisher classifies many of Voss's standard techniques (extreme anchors, emotional pressure, strategic non-disclosure) as "dirty tricks" — is Fisher too idealistic about how negotiation works, or is Voss too comfortable with manipulation?
- The "name the tactic" strategy assumes the other side will be embarrassed when called out — but what about negotiators who don't care about being called out (e.g., aggressive invest, corporate litigators)?
- Fisher says "less than full disclosure is not the same as deception" — but where exactly is the line? Concealing your BATNA is standard practice; concealing material defects in a property is fraud. What principle separates acceptable non-disclosure from deception?
- The warnings-vs-threats distinction is powerful but may be difficult to maintain in practice — if you file a lawsuit "to protect your interests," is that a warning or a threat? Does the distinction depend on framing or on genuine intent?
Personal Reflections
Space for your own thoughts, connections, disagreements, and applications. What resonated? What challenged your assumptions? How does this connect to your own experience?
Themes & Connections
- #negotiation — the core domain; this chapter addresses the adversarial extreme of negotiation
- #dirtytricks — Fisher's taxonomy of illegitimate bargaining tactics
- #principlednegotiation — applied to procedure; the same four principles used to negotiate the rules of the game
- #deception — phony facts, ambiguous authority, dubious intentions; the first category of tricky tactics
- #psychologicalwarfare — environmental manipulation, personal attacks, good-guy/bad-guy, threats
- #threats — pressure tactics that Fisher distinguishes from legitimate warnings
- #goodguybadguy — the most recognizable manipulation routine; countered by asking the good guy the same hard questions
- #lockintactics — public commitments designed to make retreat impossible; countered by deemphasizing and providing face-saving exits
- #escalatingdemands — raising demands with each concession; countered by naming the pattern and taking a break
- #BATNA — the ultimate fallback when dirty tricks can't be resolved; walking away on clearly legitimate grounds
- #reciprocity — the foundational test for any tactic: "Would you want me to do this to you?"
- Concept candidates: Dirty Tricks Defense, Warnings vs Threats, Procedural Negotiation
- Cross-book connections:
Tags
#negotiation #dirtytricks #principlednegotiation #deception #psychologicalwarfare #threats #goodguybadguy #lockintactics #escalatingdemands #BATNA #reciprocity