Countering the Ackerman Gambit
My Jazz article earlier this month, “Giving Ground (Grudgingly)” describes the Ackerman Model of pre-staging your offers so that you end up reaching your goal. It’s meant as a signal to your counterpart that the room for agreement is getting smaller and smaller. (See below.)1
I learned about the gambit from Chris Voss (pictured above) in his book, Never Split the Difference. Since then I’ve been thinking about how best to respond to the staged offer tactic if someone uses it on you. And who better to ask than Chris himself?
Here’s what he said:
“My initial thoughts would only be a relentless application of empathy between bargaining rounds. Empathy either softens the other sides position gently or at least makes them feel appreciated—which is never a bad thing.”
In the book, Chris explains that by empathy, he doesn’t mean “agreeing with the other person’s values and beliefs or giving out hugs. That’s sympathy. What I’m talking is understanding the feelings and mindset of another in the moment and also hearing what is behind those feelings, so you increase your influence in all the moments that follow.”
On a survey I posted, I also heard from Jazz readers who shared their experience dealing with the Ackerman approach. Abhishek Gupta offered a concrete example that’s fully in line with Chris Voss’s advice (especially on the empathy point). It involved a multi-million dollar deal Abhishek was negotiating with a big conglomerate for his business.
Abhishek called out the other party’s tactic, “gently and very nicely,” as it put it, having already worked on relationship-building.
“The pre-requisite is to make the other person your friend (I think you should genuinely attempt that) and show that your empathy is not made up but real. After that, I pointed out such attempts to do 65/85/95/100 would do nothing but make us sit on opposite sides of the table. We should instead find a trust-based pathway to get to a solution. I recognize it works in situations where reasonableness and long-term alignment is needed.”
Abhishek acknowledged that if you’re in a position of power, you might consider mirroring the other party’s ploy, maybe starting with an even more extreme number. Find some justification for it, he says, and ask them for counter-logic. But Abhishek cautioned that playing the same game could easily derail the deal.
That sounds right to me. I’d just add that building your strategy around one tactic may limit your vision and make you miss creative opportunities to expand the proverbial pie.
A big thanks to both Chris and Abhishek for sharing their insights and experience!
Housekeeping
Just by signing up for Jazz of Negotiation, you’ll get free access to a full article, plus a shorter post, delivered by email 50 weeks a year. Paid subscribers get additional content: Q and A threads, videos, and from time to time, short exercises, with more to come.
If you haven’t had a chance to read that piece, here are its four steps:
One: Set your target price (your goal).
Two: Set your first offer at 65 percent of your target price.
Three: calculate three raises to 85 percent of target, 95 percent, and finally 100 percent.
Four: Each time, wait for the other party to counteroffer before improving your number. Never bargain against yourself