The Negotiation Table Team Has Identified Tactics to Use – and Avoid

Jim Bergman

Introduction: Tactical Clarity Drives Negotiation Excellence

When a seasoned negotiation team enters the room, success hinges on alignment – not just in objectives but in the tactics chosen to pursue them. By defining both the tactics to use and those to avoid, teams sharpen focus, minimize internal friction, and maximize strategic outcomes. This deliberate planning approach reflects maturity, risk-awareness, and credibility across the table.

Tactics to Use: Strategic, Ethical, and Outcome-Oriented Approaches

The team aligned on a set of core tactics that reflect professionalism, influence, and strategic positioning:

– Issue-Based Framing: Focus negotiation around business-critical issues rather than positional demands.

– Collaborative Questioning: Use open-ended inquiries to surface mutual interests and uncover hidden levers.

– Anchored Offers with Justification: Present strong initial offers supported by data, benchmarks, and strategic rationale.

– Scenario-Based Modelling: Introduce “what-if” contract structures that visualize alternatives and shared risk.

– Visual Negotiation Aids: Use dashboards, clause comparisons, and timelines to drive clarity and engagement.

– Silent Mapping Moments: Embed short reflection pauses to regroup, analyze implications, and reset strategy.

Tactics to Avoid: Counterproductive Moves That Risk Strategic Value

Equally important is the team’s agreement on what not to use—tactics that might seem effective short-term but damage long-term outcomes:

– Hardball or Ultimatum Phrasing: Aggressive language erodes trust and positions negotiations as adversarial.

– Information Withholding: Concealing relevant facts may delay agreements and invite suspicion.

– Over-negotiating Minor Points: Excessive back-and-forth on low-impact issues drains momentum and patience.

– Reactive Concession Patterns: Giving ground without structured value exchange undermines leverage.

– Uncoordinated Stakeholder Messaging: Disjointed internal voices confuse the supplier and weaken credibility.

– Defaulting to Precedent-Based Closure: Settling for legacy terms without revalidating strategic fit risks misalignment with current priorities.

Conclusion: Negotiation Excellence Is Intentional

By codifying tactical choices – both the “dos” and “don’ts” – negotiation teams elevate their discipline from reactive to proactive. This tactical governance fosters cohesion, amplifies strategic intent, and drives deals that deliver sustainable value.

Your thoughts?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Jim Bergman

Jim Bergman is a commercial contract professional with global experience spanning the USA, Latin America, UK, Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, India, SE Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Australia. He has worked on a wide range of direct and indirect spend categories in numerous sectors, developing a deep knowledge of services, goods and technology procurement and sales. Across this wide array of commodity and services experience, Jim has found the keys to success in maximizing value for money through customer-supplier relationships founded on innovative category management and strategic sourcing practices, key performance metrics and measures, as well as Total Cost of Ownership principles and collaborative contracting tenets. He has shared his knowledge through advisory engagements, as well as in developing and delivering training programs both on-line and in classrooms, in both open-enrollment and internal environments. Jim has assisted his clients through all phases and steps of contracting, negotiation, strategic sourcing and bidding processes, demonstrating value generation in excess of $250 million. His audiences and clients have included over 7,000 attorneys and commercial professionals students from over 1,000 corporations and public-sector entities.

Leave a comment