The Wikipedia definition is the “bad cop” takes an aggressive, negative stance towards the subject, making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and themselves.
This sets the stage for the “good cop” to act sympathetically, appearing supportive and understanding, and in general showing sympathy for the subject. The “good cop” will also defend the subject from the “bad cop”. The subject may feel they can cooperate with the good cop either out of trust or out of fear of the bad cop. They may then seek protection by (and trust) the good cop and provide the information the interrogators are seeking.
So there I was, sitting in a meeting in New York with one of my global luxury fashion clients, who suggested this approach. It seems to be the globally recognised phenomenon that every buyer wished for 15 years ago. Now, the stakeholder wants the commercial separation to keep their supplier relationship intact. However, there will always be a tipping point when the relationship can become impacted and one side needs to concede. the good cop bad cop approach works when you are selecting a supplier with little competition and you are not moving ahead with a competitive tender.
Good cops always need to trust your judgement to enable you to push that bit further on price. If they do no trust you, this approach will not work and the seller will know it and use it to their advantage. Such situations can often impact the deal meaning good cops can pay significantly more than they should be, as the relationship is now perceived to be stronger between the good cop and the seller rather than the good and bad cop.
The moral of the story is by all means work with this approach, however you must have faith in procurement that they will get the job done whatever the seller throws at them.
