There is a tactic in negotiation called "CHICKEN TACTIC". What does it mean?

 This negotiating style has gained popularity as the strategy that a hard nosed negotiator uses, it has become appealing . This is a problem as it is completely destructive and after any game of negotiation chicken the working relationship between the parties involved become irreparably harmed. .  chicken is when a negative outcome has become assured, or likely, unless one of the negotiating parties backs down, i.e. takes action that has a cost to such party.If you are on the receiving end of a game of chicken the first thing that you need to understand and accept is that your relationship with your counter party is over.  The second thing that you need to understand is that your aim is no longer the original goals that you wanted from the negotiation but instead to figure out how to manage your exit from the relationship in the best possible way.Your first response should be to put up a bit of a fight, just for show. If you quickly recognise the game and switch to short term exit negotiation you will alert your counter party. A little struggle creates a smoke screen that is useful. Then, ask for a break in negotiations so you have time to think. If you have put up the fake fight then your counter party will think he is winning and he will concede to the break request.

At this point you need to focus on how to exit with the minimum of cost or risk and put aside any emotional ill will that can cloud your judgement. The details will of course depend on the contract. It is also important that you do not tip off your counter part as to your intention. He is clearly not reasonable so it is best to allow him to think that he is won.

IN CHICKEN TACTIC NEGOTIATOR COMBINE A BLUFF WITH A PURPORTED ACTION. IT IS A HIGH RISK STRATEGY. IF THE OTHER SIDE CALLS THEIR BLUFF, THEY MUST BE WILLING TO CARRY THROUGH WITH THE ACTION.

EXAMPLE : IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT OUR OFFER, WE WILL CLOSE THE PLANT.

COUNTER TACTIC: IGNORE THE BLUFF AND KEEP ON TALKING OR CALL THEIR BLUFF.

Advantages

 • Non

 Disadvantages

• Turns the negotiation into a high-stakes gamble for both sides

• Makes it hard to distinguish whether either party will follow through on his/her  stated course of actionDealing with Chicken

• Preparation before negotiation helps to understand both parties’ situations

• Using external sources to verify what’s exchanged in the negotiation

Thanks

I prefer to wait for more answers from colleagues, I have not experience in this field.

It's a hard negotiation tactic based on inflincting a mock high-stake situation. It spoils the rapport and make your counterpart an adverssary. in a threatening high-stake situation people tend to make unconscious decisions based on euristics more than rationality (fight, flee freeze type response) and makes them prone to prior enforced anchors, priming effect and biases. temporary success not always means a long term profit. So, in my opinion no significant advantage on employing this tactic.

Negotiators combine a bluff with a purported action, It is a high risk strategy. Negotiators use this tactic which combines a large bluff with a threatened action to force the other party to give them what they want. This is a high-stakes gamble method the weakness of the chicken tactic is that it turns negotiation into a serious game in which one or both parties find it difficult to distinguish reality from postured negotiation positions. 

Thanks for invitation I prefer to wait for more answers from colleagues .

The chicken tactic is named after the 1950s challenge, portrayed in the James Dean movie Rebel without a Cause, of two people driving cars at each other or toward a cliff until one person swerves to avoid disaster. The person who swerves is labeled a chicken, and the other person is treated like a hero. Negotiators who use this tactic combine a large bluff with a threatened action to force the other party to “chicken out” and give them what they want. Clearly this is a high-stakes gamble method. On the one hand, involved one party must be willing to follow through on the threat—if the counter party calls their bluff and they do not follow through, they will not be believed in the future. On the other hand, how can the counter party take the risk and call the bluff? If the threatening is telling the truth, the consequences will be extreme. The weakness of the chicken tactic is that it turns negotiation into a serious game in which one or both parties find it difficult to distinguish reality from postured negotiation positions. Will the other party really follow through on his or her threats? We frequently cannot know for sure because the circumstances must be grave in order for this tactic to be believable; but it is precisely when circumstances are grave that a negotiator may be most tempted to use this tactic. Compare, for instance, the responses of Presidents William Clinton and George W. Bush to Iraq’s defiance of the United Nations weapons inspection program. It appears that Iraq felt it could “stare down” President Bush because it had successfully avoided outright conflict during President Clinton’s term. The subsequent events demonstrated the error of this assessment. The chicken tactic is very difficult for a negotiator to defend against. To the extent that the commitment can be downplayed, reworded, or ignored, however, it could lose its power. Perhaps the riskiest response is to introduce one’s own chicken tactic. At that point neither party may be willing to back down in order not to lose face. Preparation and a thorough understanding of the situations of both parties are absolutely essential for trying to identify where reality ends and the chicken tactic begins. Use of external experts to verify information or to help to reframe the situation is another option.  

Intimidation Many tactics can be gathered under the general label of intimidation. What they have in common is that they all attempt to force the other party to agree by means of an emotional ploy, usually anger or fear. For example, the other party may deliberately use anger to indicate the seriousness of a position. Another form of intimidation includes increasing the appearance of legitimacy. When legitimacy is high, set policies or procedures are in place for resolving disputes. Negotiators who do not have such policies or procedures available may try to invent them and then impose them on the other negotiator while making the process appear legitimate. For example, policies that are written in manuals or preprinted official forms and agreements are less likely to be questioned than those that are delivered verbally; long and detailed loan contracts that banks use for consumer loans are seldom read completely. The greater the appearance of legitimacy, the less likely the other party will be to question the process being followed or the contract terms being proposed. Finally, guilt can also be used as a form of intimidation. Negotiators can question the other party’s integrity or the other’s lack of trust in them. The purpose of this tactic is to place the other party on the defensive so that they are dealing with the issues of guilt or trust rather than discussing the substance of the negotiation. To deal with intimidation tactics, negotiators have several options. Intimidation tactics are designed to make the intimidator feel more powerful than the other party and to lead people to make concessions for emotional rather than objective reasons. When making any concession, it is important for negotiators to understand why they are doing so. If one starts to feel threatened, assumes that the other party is more powerful (when objectively he or she is not), or simply accepts the legitimacy of the other negotiator’s “company policy,” then it is likely that intimidation is having an effect on the negotiations. If the other negotiator is intimidating, then discussing the negotiation process with him or her is a good option. You can explain that your policy is to bargain in a fair and respectful manner, and that you expect to be treated the same way in return. Another good option is to ignore the other party’s attempts to intimidate you, because intimidation can only influence you if you let it. While this may sound too simplistic, think for a moment about why some people you know are intimidated by authority figures and others are not—the reason often lies in the perceiver, not the authority figure. Another effective strategy for dealing with intimidation is to use a team to negotiate with the other party. Teams have at least two advantages over individuals in acting against intimidation. First, people are not always intimidated by the same things; while you may be intimidated by one particular negotiator, it is quite possible that other members on your team won’t be. The second advantage of using a team is that the team members can discuss the tactics of the other negotiators and provide mutual support if the intimidation starts to become increasingly uncomfortable.