Beyond mindset, negotiation is a craft of moves and counter-moves. Anchoring sets the initial reference point, which is why making the first offer is often advantageous: it shapes the conversation in your favor. Variations include the high-low offer, opening aggressively to anchor and leave room, and bracketing, countering with an extreme on the other side so the midpoint becomes your target. Voss's Ackerman model proposes a concrete sequence: start at 65% of your target, then 85%, then 95%, then 100%, with small reciprocal concessions along the way. The order of concessions matters too; smaller and decreasing concessions signal that you are nearing your limit, while a visible flinch signals that an offer is shockingly far off.
A wide range of tactics tests the other side's resolve. The take-it-or-leave-it offer is risky but can close deals; good cop/bad cop pairs aggressive and conciliatory roles to extract concessions; the nibble asks for small extras after the main deal is set; the salami tactic breaks big demands into thin slices, each easier to accept. Silence as a tactic puts pressure on the other party to fill the void, while a vise grip, bluntly demanding you will have to do better than that, often elicits a better offer. Some tactics are openly adversarial: missile diplomacy sets an aggressive tone from the start, while the snow job overwhelms the other side with information to confuse. Others are subtler, like the bogey, pretending an issue is important so it can later be traded away, or boulwarism, opening with a best and final offer that often backfires. Splitting the difference can feel fair but, per Voss, often leaves value unrealized and creates habits of compromise.
The most effective moves usually create value rather than just claim it. Logrolling trades concessions on issues you each value differently; bridging creates new options that satisfy both parties' interests; a contingent agreement makes a deal conditional on future events, useful when uncertainty is high. Reciprocal concession leverages the norm that after receiving a concession, the other party feels obliged to concede in return, establishing a give-take rhythm. Hard bargaining pursues maximum gain at the cost of the relationship; soft bargaining prioritizes the relationship at the cost of the outcome. Principled negotiation offers the Harvard middle ground: firm on interests, soft on people. The distinction between persuasion and manipulation is that persuasion respects autonomy and uses honest appeals, while manipulation exploits and deceives; ethical negotiation is grounded in honesty, fairness, and respect.