First, read "The Norm of Reciprocity Revisited". After that, as an MBA/MSSL student, analyze the concept of "Good cop, bad cop" as a conflict resolution concept? How do you think about the concepts like "antipathy" ad "sympathy" in your analysis?

You should be precautions about using the "good cop, bad cop" concept in your daily managerial activities. Because come concepts like antipathy or sympathy can overlap with the concepts like empathy. Especially when, as bad cops, we authorize ourselves to have some behaviors like aggression.

The Norm of Reciprocity Revisited

Good Cop - Bad Cop

A subtle way to utilize the principle of reciprocity is the, "good cop - bad cop" ploy which is well known from crime movies: one officer is very rude, bangs the table, and almost gets violent with the interviewee. The "good" cop pulls his colleague back, telling him that he should even go for a walk in order to cool down. He then faces the interviewee, offering him a cup of coffee and a cigarette and apologizes for his aggressive colleague. The interviewee is now subject to the norm of reciprocity: he feels obliged to the good cop, who is so kind to him, even putting his own relationship to his colleague at stake.[12]

This method is old but effective and leads to measurable success.[13] It can be easily utilized for negotiations in teams of at least two. The "bad cop" makes outrageous claims and introduces extreme anchors. The "bad cop" leaves the meeting but the "good cop" stays. If the leaving "bad cop" is held back by the other party, the ploy is unnecessary. If not, however, the "good cop" is left to conclude the deal without anyone having to return to the table. Now, the "good cop" can say: "He's a hothead, I am sorry. But I think we could come to a deal if you came down just a bit with your price."[14] His claims now appear more reasonable due to the contrasting effect. Also, the other party is now grateful to him and feels obliged to cooperate.[15] In order to not ruin a long-term relationship with the other party, it is useful to utilize easily replaceable negotiators for the role of the "bad cop", such as a lawyer or a consultant.

In order to maximize the effect of reciprocity, receiving more than giving would be the royal road. Two trader tricks, the Bogey and the Decoy and two psychological phenomena, Hyperbolic Discounting and Prospect Theory, will be scrutinized.

Conclusion

Savvy negotiators will try to use the norm of reciprocity. In order to neutralize the impact, one may be aware of the effect.[21] As the effect may work nonetheless, active intervention may be more useful: as soon as one is been presented with a "gift", one should either decline or swiftly offer an equivalent. Going back to the prologue, I should have either declined the cup of tea or insisted on paying it.

However, the skillful application of the norm of reciprocity is a key to successful negotiation, even when the stakes are very high. During the Cold War the American Charles Osgood developed the concept of GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction) for the de-escalation of conflicts.[22] When negotiations are about to fail, one party may make a concession in order to show good will - increasing the chances of receiving a concession from the other party. Instead of a downward spiral, an upward spiral is now triggered, set in the direction of an agreement.

Former Prime Minister of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, flew to Jerusalem on November 19, 1977, to meet his Israeli counterpart Menachem Begin. With this visit in which he was cheerfully greeted by Israelis, he was the first Arab head of state to accept Israel's right to exist. The historical visit led to the peace agreement of Camp David.[23] A concession can take many forms, what is vital is that it is used strategically in order to reach a negotiation goal.

While each of the described phenomena has been explored before, much can be gained by combining them in the context of a negotiation.[24]