Negotiation style

Negotiation style
See also
Compromise Sales techniques Negotiation Management by conflict Ability to work in a team Cross-cultural leadership Leadership competencies Strategic partnership and negotiations Creative thinking techniques

Negotiations are a difficult and complicated process of making a joint decision, in which each participant wants to pursue their own interests. When preparing for negotiations, we need to determine what final effect we want to achieve and in what atmosphere we want to carry it out, to choose the right style of negotiation.

The style of conducting negotiations results from the personality predispositions, conscious choice or attitude based on the assumption that a particular way of acting is the most appropriate in a given situation.

People differ in reactions due to the occurrence of a conflict situation and show an unequal degree of focus on their own and the other's interests. The negotiator should have strong personality traits, stick to facts and focus on the problem, not on the participants, should have a good reputation, have authority, be resistant to stress, and should have the ability to persuade and persuade. It can not be biased, self-centered or suspicious.

Referring to the basic dimension of each interaction, the following types of negotiations can be distinguished:

• Negotiations conducted by parties with symmetrical status, e.g. diplomats of a similar level.
• Negotiations with asymmetric status, in which one side has a much higher status than the other.

The second case appears much more frequently. Unequal negotiating positions are caused by the difference in the resources possessed and the availability of goods that both sides have.

In the negotiations, we can distinguish two dimensions: "cooperation or struggle" and "activity or passivity". Combining both dimensions, we obtain four styles of negotiation.

Types of negotiation styles

Apart from the above-mentioned criterion of the division of negotiations, there are several basic styles, most often described in the literature on the subject: cooperative style, competition style and material style.

Competition style

The competition style is a strongly competitive style, and among others the least constructive, expressed in the following strategies: "winning - loser" or "loser - loser". The negotiator demands unilateral concessions and puts pressure. The type of negotiations assumes victory at all costs. A partner in talks is treated as a competitor or enemy. You are looking for a solution that is only beneficial to yourself. Negotiators presenting this style take a hard stance towards people and the problem. When planning long-term contacts during business, hard style is not useful. Negotiations often result in the opponent being exhausted during negotiations.

The characteristic features of the competition style are:

• putting pressure,
• insisting on yours,
• the use of threats, demands and blackmail, and misleading the partner.

The main goal is to win, and the partner is the opponent. The presented competition model assumes the satisfaction of the maximum of its own interests at the expense of the opposing party. "Hard" negotiations are only profitable if the contact with the parties is one-off. Almost always one party pays high costs, and the destructive consequences make cooperation difficult.

Cooperative style

The cooperative style tends to make concessions to the other party, while giving up their own needs, in order to maintain good relations with the partner. Wishing to maintain the sympathy of the other party, he gives up and resigns from pursuing his own interests. The reason for this behavior may be fear of partner's reaction or inability to recite. The cooperative model is a form of adjustment, because the negotiator tries to avoid conflict and easily gives way, so as to reach an agreement. It also happens that the site is usually friendly and unaccustomed to the conflict, wanting to end the contentious issue as soon as possible.

Characteristics of the cooperative style:

• looking for a solution that will be accepted by the partner,
• the approval of losses in the name of a specific agreement,
• the lower limit of what is acceptable is shown,
• positions are easily and frequently changed,
• new offers are not rarely desired, wanting to gain trust.

Often the "soft" negotiator ends the dispute with the feeling that he has been used and feels uncomfortable about it.

A material style

The material style draws attention to the interests and values ​​of the parties as well as to interpersonal relations. The seriousness and honesty of the negotiators brings a settlement and benefits for both parties. The material model is expressed in the "win-win" strategy, where the solution is obtained in an effective and amicable way. It is based on making decisions on specific issues and relies on the merits of the case, but not on the tender around what both sides say they will do or will not do. This style suggests that during conflicting interests it should be demanded that the final of talks be based on criteria independent of the will of the parties.

Negotiations based on such principles can be applied regardless of whether one or several issues are being negotiated, whether one or more parties are involved in the negotiations, whether the manner of conducting talks is formalized (e.g. collective disputes) or determined at the moment (e.g. negotiations with hijackers). Also regardless of whether the other party has experience and whether its representative is a tough or friendly negotiator. (Fisher, Ury, 2007).

The essence of a material style can be presented in the form of four guidelines, applicable in almost every situation:

• People - separate people from the problem
• Interests - focus on business, not on positions
• Possibilities of solutions - develop many possibilities, you will make a decision for it
• Criteria - demand that the outcome of the talks be based on objective criteria.

Direct comparison of negotiation styles

Comparison of negotiation styles-table

Cooperative style	Competition style	Material style
Participants are friends	Participants are opponents	Participants solve the problem
The goal is to reach an agreement	The goal is to win	The goal is a wise result achieved effectively and amicably
They give way to cultivate mutual relations	They demand concessions as conditions for mutual relations	Separate people from the problem
Be soft against people and the problem	Be hard against people and the problem	Be soft against people, hard against the problem
Trust in others	Do not trust others	Act independently and trust
Easily change your position	Entrench your position	Focus on business, not on positions
Use threats	Explore and discover interests
Show the bottom line of the agreement	Deceive the bottom line of the agreement	Avoid having a bottom line of agreement
Accept unilateral losses in the name of reaching an agreement	Demand for unilateral benefits as conditions for concluding an agreement	Develop opportunities that benefit both parties
Insist on communication	Insist on your position	Insist on using objective criteria
Try to avoid the fight of the will	Try to win the fight of the will	Try to achieve a result based on objective criteria
Give in to pressure	Put pressure	Justify and be open to justification. Give in to rules, not pressure

Examples of Negotiation style

• Compromise Negotiation: This style revolves around a win-win outcome, in which both parties seek to find a mutually beneficial solution. An example is when two parties are negotiating a contract. Both parties need to come to an agreement on the terms of the contract, and this requires compromising on certain aspects of the contract.
• Competition Negotiation: This style is focused on gaining the upper hand and creating a win-lose situation. In this type of negotiation, the parties involved are looking to maximize their own interests and outcomes. An example of this is when two companies are negotiating a merger. One company may try to gain the upper hand in the negotiations and maximize the benefits for themselves.
• Collaboration Negotiation: This style is focused on creating a win-win situation for both parties involved. The aim is to work together to find a solution that both parties can agree to. An example of this is when two countries are negotiating a trade deal. Both countries will work together to try to find a mutually beneficial agreement.
• Avoidance Negotiation: This style is focused on avoiding confrontation and conflict. The aim is to find a solution that is satisfactory to all parties involved, without having to engage in any type of conflict or dispute. An example of this is when two countries are negotiating a peace treaty. Both sides will try to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties, without resorting to any kind of confrontation or dispute.

Advantages of Negotiation style

Negotiation is an effective way of reaching an agreement between two or more parties that can be beneficial for all. Here are some of the advantages of a negotiation style:

• It allows parties to collaborate and find common ground, as opposed to a more adversarial approach. This can often lead to a better outcome for everyone involved.
• It can help parties to understand each other's perspectives and interests better, allowing for a more productive dialogue.
• It encourages parties to think creatively and come up with solutions that may not have been considered before.
• It allows parties to reach a mutually beneficial agreement, rather than relying on a third party to decide the outcome.
• It builds trust and relationships between parties, which can lead to more successful negotiations in the future.

Limitations of Negotiation style

Negotiations are a complicated process requiring a delicate skill set. Different styles of negotiation can be used to achieve the desired outcome, but they all have their limitations. Some of the most common limitations of negotiation style include:

• Poor planning: Negotiations often require careful planning in order to be successful. If the parties involved do not have a clear plan of action or are not well-versed in the process, they may find themselves at a disadvantage.
• Unclear objectives: Negotiations require clear objectives from both sides, otherwise it is difficult to reach an agreement. Without clearly defined objectives, it is easy for the process to become mired in disagreement.
• Poor communication: Negotiations depend on effective communication between the parties involved. If the parties do not understand each other, or if communication is hindered by language barriers, it is difficult for the process to move forward.
• Unreasonable expectations: Negotiations require that each side is willing to compromise. If one party has unrealistic expectations, it can be difficult to reach an agreement.
• Uncooperative attitude: Negotiations require cooperation from both sides in order to reach an agreement. If one party is unwilling to cooperate, it can be difficult to reach a successful outcome.

Other approaches related to Negotiation style

Negotiations are a complex process, and there are a variety of approaches which can be used when negotiating.

• Interest-Based Negotiation – This involves focusing on the interests of both parties rather than their positions, and seeks to find a mutually beneficial outcome.
• Win-Win Negotiation – This seeks to find a solution which both sides consider satisfactory. It is based on the idea that both sides should be equally satisfied with the outcome of the negotiation.
• Win-Lose Negotiation – This approach seeks to have one side benefit at the expense of the other. It is based on the idea that one side should come out ahead of the other.
• Compromise Negotiation – This involves both sides making concessions in order to reach an agreement. It is based on the idea that both sides should make some sacrifices in order to reach a deal.
• Distributive Negotiation – This involves one side trying to gain the greatest advantage possible at the expense of the other. It is based on the idea that one side should come out ahead of the other.

In conclusion, there are a variety of approaches which can be used when negotiating. Each approach has different advantages and disadvantages, and it is important to consider which approach will be most suitable for the specific situation.

References

• Schneider, A. K. (2002). Shattering negotiation myths: Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of negotiation style. Harv. Negot. L. Rev., 7, 143.
• Fu, H., Tan, H. T., & Zhang, J. (2011). Effect of auditor negotiation experience and client negotiating style on auditors' judgments in an auditor-client negotiation context. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(3), 225-237.
• de la Rosa, J. L., Hormazábal, N., Aciar, S., Lopardo, G. A., Trias, A., & Montaner, M. (2011). A negotiation-style recommender based on computational ecology in open negotiation environments. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(6), 2073-2085.