Good Guy/Bad Guy

Leverage contrasting personas to create urgency and drive decisive actions from potential buyers

Introduction

The Good Guy/Bad Guy negotiation technique is a classic tactic where two people—often from the same side—play contrasting roles to influence the other party’s decision. The “bad guy” takes a firm, uncompromising stance, while the “good guy” appears sympathetic and cooperative. In sales, this dynamic can pressure buyers or soften their resistance.

For Account Executives (AEs), Sales Development Representatives (SDRs), and managers, understanding this technique is crucial—not only to recognize it when buyers or procurement teams use it but also to apply its underlying principles ethically. This article explains how the method works, why it influences decision-making, and how to adapt its elements for ethical, trust-based selling.

Historical Background

The Good Guy/Bad Guy approach originated in law enforcement interrogation and classic negotiation training during the mid-20th century (Shell, 2006). Early versions used psychological contrast to manipulate suspects into compliance. Over time, the technique entered business and union negotiations, where it became synonymous with “pressure-and-relief” tactics.

In modern sales, the ethical stance has shifted: instead of staging roles to deceive, professionals use the principle of contrast to create clarity and reassurance. The “two roles” may be symbolic—representing structure (firmness) and empathy (flexibility)—within a single salesperson’s approach.

Psychological Foundations

1.Contrast Effect – When people evaluate two opposing behaviors, the second appears more appealing (Cialdini, 2007). After firm resistance, cooperation feels like relief.

2.Reciprocity – When one party seems to concede, the other feels compelled to reciprocate (Gouldner, 1960). The “good guy” benefits from this reflex.

3.Authority and Trust Dynamics – People respond differently to perceived authority figures versus empathetic peers (Milgram, 1974). The balance triggers compliance while preserving rapport.

4.Framing Effect – The order in which firmness and friendliness appear changes how proposals are perceived (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981). Starting with tension, then relief, increases acceptance.

Core Concept and Mechanism

The Good Guy/Bad Guy technique works by contrasting two tones or stances to influence emotion and perception. It exploits the human preference for resolution after discomfort.

How It Works Step-by-Step

1.The “Bad Guy” stance – Presents tough terms, expresses non-negotiable limits, or enforces policy.

2.Emotional tension rises – The counterpart feels cornered or uncertain.

3.The “Good Guy” enters – Offers empathy, possible compromises, or alternative framing.

4.Relief effect – The counterpart relaxes and becomes more cooperative, perceiving fairness.

Ethical Use vs. Manipulation

•Ethical version: Balances firmness and empathy within one authentic professional. Example: “I wish we could discount more, but pricing integrity matters. Let’s see if there’s a configuration that fits your budget.”

•Manipulative version: Pretends roles or fabricates authority figures. Example: “My boss is being unreasonable—let me fight for you.”

Ethical influence centers on transparency and respect. The manipulative version erodes trust quickly once exposed.

Practical Application: How to Use It

Step-by-Step Playbook

1.Establish rapport – Be credible before introducing constraints.

2.Diagnose needs – Understand priorities so your “firmness” feels principled, not arbitrary.

3.Recognize buying signals – Notice tension or hesitation before introducing empathy.

4.Use dual-tone communication:

5.Close collaboratively:

Phrasing Examples

•“I completely understand your position. My finance team is strict on discounts, but let’s see what flexibility exists in the package.”

•“The scope at that price is tough—but I’ll do my best to align internally.”

•“Policy-wise, we can’t go lower—but maybe we can improve terms on delivery or support.”

Mini-Script

Buyer: That price seems high for what we’re getting.

AE: I hear you. The pricing is based on our standard enterprise configuration, which my finance team is strict about.

Buyer: So there’s no room at all?

AE: I’ll be honest—it’s tight. But let me see if there’s a way to adjust implementation or payment terms to make it easier.

Buyer: That would help.

AE: Great. I’ll explore options that keep your value intact while staying compliant.

Situation	Prompt line	Why it works	Risk to watch
Budget objection	“Finance is strict, but I’ll advocate for you.”	Shifts tension to cooperation	Fabricated authority may backfire
Scope discussion	“That’s outside standard terms—but maybe there’s wiggle room.”	Combines firmness and flexibility	Overpromising discounts
Renewal negotiation	“Policy says 10%, but I’ll see if we can stretch.”	Builds goodwill	Encourages unrealistic expectations
Multi-stakeholder deal	“Legal’s firm on this clause—I’ll help simplify wording.”	Shows advocacy and partnership	Confusing roles across departments

Real-World Examples

B2C Scenario: Automotive Sales

In a car dealership, the sales manager quotes the full price firmly. When the customer hesitates, the salesperson interjects: “Let me see if I can get you something better.” They return with a modest discount or free maintenance. The customer perceives cooperation and often accepts. Dealerships using this approach report conversion rates 10–15% higher (source: NADA Retail Studies, 2018).

B2B Scenario: SaaS Negotiation

A SaaS AE negotiates with a procurement manager demanding a 20% discount. The AE explains, “Finance has capped approvals at 10%.” When the buyer hesitates, the AE adds, “However, I can include onboarding support at no cost if that helps.” The buyer agrees, and the AE preserves both revenue and goodwill. The “firm but flexible” balance builds long-term credibility.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

1.Staging fake personas → breaks trust → Keep roles real; use tone variation instead.

2.Overusing empathy after firmness → sounds inconsistent → Anchor in company policy first, then pivot logically.

3.Overpromising exceptions → causes internal friction → Secure approval before offering “favors.”

4.Blaming internal teams → damages brand unity → Say “we” instead of “they.”

5.Failing to read buyer reactions → prolongs discomfort → Shift tone once tension peaks.

6.Ignoring transparency ethics → leads to reputation loss → Explain rationale honestly.

7.Copying the tactic mechanically → feels manipulative → Personalize your tone to buyer style.

Advanced Variations and Modern Use Cases

Digital and Subscription Sales

•Use automated pricing boundaries (“system-generated limits”) to represent the “bad guy” constraint.

•Follow with human empathy: “The system caps at this tier, but I’ll manually check for flexibility.”

Consultative and Relationship-Based Selling

In consultative contexts, internal roles replace staged personas:

•“Our operations team is cautious on lead times—I’ll advocate for your priority slot.”

This creates authentic contrast: structured constraint + helpful partnership.

Cross-Cultural Notes

•In collectivist cultures (e.g., Japan, South Korea), portraying internal alignment (“Our team’s goal is to support you”) builds credibility.

•In low-context cultures (e.g., U.S., Germany), separating firmness and empathy clearly—without theatrics—works better.

Creative Phrasings

•“I wish I could adjust that—let me explore if procurement allows exceptions.”

•“The policy’s firm, but I’m not—let’s brainstorm alternatives.”

•“That term’s tight, but maybe we can sweeten value elsewhere.”

Conclusion

The Good Guy/Bad Guy technique reminds us that effective negotiation balances firmness and empathy. In ethical sales practice, it’s not about performance—it’s about guiding emotion constructively.

Used authentically, the approach helps buyers feel supported while maintaining company standards. The key is transparency: you can embody both the good and the firm without pretending to be two people.

Actionable takeaway: Lead with structure, follow with empathy, and never fake the contrast. The best “good guy” is simply a fair negotiator.

Checklist: Do This / Avoid This

•✅ Combine firmness with empathy in one authentic voice

•✅ Reference real constraints (finance, policy)

•✅ Use relief and contrast consciously

•✅ Keep language professional and honest

•✅ Focus on value, not deception

•❌ Don’t invent personas or authority figures

•❌ Don’t overpromise flexibility

•❌ Don’t prolong tension unnecessarily

•❌ Don’t pit internal teams against each other

•❌ Don’t manipulate emotion

FAQ

Q1: When does Good Guy/Bad Guy backfire?

When buyers detect role-playing or false empathy—it immediately destroys credibility.

Q2: How can I adapt it solo?

Alternate tone naturally: start structured (“policy-driven”) then transition to partnership (“let’s find a path”).

Q3: What’s the ethical rule of thumb?

If your buyer knew the full truth, would they still feel respected? If yes, it’s ethical.

References

•Cialdini, R. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.**

•Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science.

•Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage. Penguin.

•Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. Harper & Row.

•Gouldner, A. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review.