When two parties negotiate a written agreement, one partner usually does the drafting. We'll let Donald be the drafter, and we'll call the Other partner Olivia. Here are some deceptive techniques available to drafters. See "Extrasensory Deception: I," Point Lookout for October 22, 2008, for other deceptive negotiation tactics.
- The nonredraft redraft
- Donald agrees to drop language cited by Olivia, but in redrafting, he inserts new language that has the same effect, albeit somewhat more artful. He then presents it as a serious attempt to address Olivia's concerns, and he might even say, "Shall we move on to the next section?"
- Donald's behavior is a deception, intended to suggest that Olivia's concerns were addressed, when they were not. The more clever operators might even materially weaken Olivia's position.
- The bonus
- Donald agrees to add language Olivia requested, but he also inserts conditions that weren't requested, and which erode the effect of the requested language.
- This deception is related to the Nonredraft Redraft, but it applies to the requested addition of new language, rather than to the revision of existing language. It can be more subtle because the bonus changes might have been inserted elsewhere.
- Unexpected revisions
- When Donald returns with the redraft, he's made the changes that were discussed, but he's also made some unrelated changes that weren't discussed. During the walkthrough, he omits any mention of the unexpected revisions, or mentions them only in passing. He pressures Olivia so as to limit the time she has to contemplate their impact.
- Unless Donald is a master of pressure, this tactic can be risky for him. If Olivia discovers what he has done, she'll probably cease trusting him, and that might lead her to review the entire document. To limit this risk, Donald might try the next tactic, Late Delivery.
- Late delivery
- When Donald sends Olivia the latest draft about 40 nanoseconds — or even an hour — before their next meeting, he might be trying to deprive her of any real opportunity to review it.When one negotiation partner
discovers a deception by
the other, Trust is threatened - A reasonable response to Late Delivery is "We have to reschedule." Olivia can say, "I just received it, and I need to review it," but that does open her to Donald's feigning offense or using some other pressure tactic. Sometimes it's more fun just to say, "I have to water my begonias."
Perhaps the most powerfully deceptive tactic for drafters is Seizing the Drafting Role. If negotiations begin with Olivia sending Donald a draft agreement, he can respond by returning the agreement without citing any objections, but re-written to his own satisfaction. He has thus seized the drafting role without Olivia's consent, and without explaining what he has done to the agreement. Olivia can point this out, but he surely already knows. Since this tactic is a strong indication that the negotiation will be difficult, Olivia might consider her time better spent watering her begonias. First in this series Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
Related articles
More articles on Ethics at Work:
- Budget Shenanigans: Swaps
- When projects run over budget, managers face a temptation to use creative accounting to address the
problem. The budget swap is one technique for making ends meet. It distorts organizational data, and
it's just plain unethical.
- Ethical Influence: II
- When we influence others as they're making tough decisions, it's easy to enter a gray area. How can
we be certain that our influence isn't manipulation? How can we influence others ethically?
- Telephonic Deceptions: I
- People have been deceiving each other at work since the invention of work. Nowadays, with telephones
ever-present, telephonic deceptions are becoming more creative. Here's Part I of a handy guide for telephonic
self-defense.
- Appearance Anti-patterns: II
- When we make decisions based on appearance we risk making errors. We create hostile work environments,
disappoint our customers, and create inefficient processes. Maintaining congruence between the appearance
and the substance of things can help.
- Red Flags: III
- Early signs of troubles in collaborations include toxic conflict, elevated turnover, and anti-patterns
in communication. But among the very earliest red flags are abuses of power. They're more significant
than other red flags because abuses of power can convert any collaboration into a morass of destructive
politics.
See also Ethics at Work and Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.
- Wikipedia has a nice article with a list of additional resources
- Some public libraries offer collections. Here's an example from Saskatoon.
- Check my own links collection
- LinkedIn's Office Politics discussion group