We have all heard about the old “Good cop vs Bad cop” routine when it comes to negotiating. In fact, you will likely have been at the receiving end of it or perhaps you’ve dished it out in the past. Does it work, though?
Yes, sometimes it works, but it’s not nice. The reason why it can work and why it’s not nice is one and the same – it’s manipulation. Nothing more than a psychological tactic.
How it works
This is the mechanics of the manipulation. There are two negotiators on the same team. One plays the “good cop”, the other plays the “bad cop”. The bad cop is hostile and unwilling to give concessions. The good cop is more reasonable and closer to the other side’s position.
The idea is for the good cop to trick the other side to work with him/her to appease the bad cop, thereby extracting concessions from the other side that would otherwise not have been given. There are variations of this scenario, but the underlaying mechanics remain the same.
According to a study, the tactic has the potential to work only if the “bad cop” starts the negotiation. However, that study from 2000 is now more than 20 years old, and I would argue that the broad awareness of the tactic makes it even less effective than it was back then. The “magic trick” has been revealed again and again and again.
Another problem with the good cop vs bad cop routine is that it rests on a flawed assumption. That’s the assumption that negotiation is a zero-sum game. In order for me to win, you have to lose. So, I’ll trick you.
Why good cop vs bad cop isn’t a good negotiation tactic
In reality, the best deals are negotiated when both parties have, or are willing to adopt, a more expansive mindset, recognising that additional value can be created. That encourages collaboration where both parties can win, rather than competition where one always loses.
It also focuses attention on the problem that needs to be solved, so both parties can be hard on the problem and soft on the people. At the end of the day, we are all human beings trying to add value and make a little money along the way. Keeping the conversations good natured with an appropriate portion of humour never did any harm.
But what if the other side insists on playing good cop vs bad cop? My approach is to not perceive the two “cops” as different people. They are one and the same, representing the same interests. I don’t respond to the emotions of neither the good cop nor the bad cop, only to the facts on the table.
In the article How to negotiate great supplier contracts, I talk about preparation and knowing your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). And to me, that provides an effective shield against the good cop vs bad cop routine – or any other “routine” for that matter.
So, in advance, I am clear on what my alternatives are, when I need to walk away, which concessions to give and which not to give. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what kind of “cop” I face.
