The Essential Elements of Negotiation

UNIT 12

INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

 

PLAN

1. Introduction (definition, etymology, negotiation theory)

2. Types of negotiation

3. Negotiation styles

4. Types of negotiators

5. The essential elements of negotiation (strategies and techniques)

6. Key skills in negotiating

7. Tactics and how to overcome the top ten negotiating tactics

8. International negotiations (general principles and differences)

9. Challenges of negotiating across cultures

 

LECTURE

Let's first define what negotiation means. The Random House Dictionary ( 2nd Edition) defines "to negotiate" as “...to deal or bargain with another or others, as in the preparation of a treaty or contract or in preliminaries to a business deal.”

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has it as “...to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter. “

But one of the best definition I've come across was given by Robert D. Rutherford, Ph.D., author of The Twenty Five Most Common Mistakes Made in Negotiating...and What You Can Do About Them. He defines negotiation as: “...an effort to resolve a difference between two or more parties by the give-and-take process.”

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a mutually beneficial outcome, resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision analysis, game theory, and negotiation analysis. Another classification of theories distinguishes between structural analysis, strategic analysis, process analysis, integrative analysis and behavioral analysis of negotiations. Negotiation is a specialized and formal version of conflict resolution most frequently employed when important issues must be agreed upon. Negotiation is necessary when one party requires the other party's agreement to achieve its aim. The aim of negotiating is to build a shared environment leading to long-term trust and often involves a third, neutral party to extract the issues from the emotions and keep the individuals concerned focused. It is a powerful method for resolving conflict and requires skill and experience. Zartman defines negotiation as "a process of combining conflicting positions into a common position under a decision rule of unanimity, a phenomenon in which the outcome is determined by the process." Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers.

Etymology

The word "negotiation" originated in the early 15th century from the Old French and Latin expressions “negociacion” and “negotiationem.” These terms mean “business, trade and traffic.” By the late 1590s negotiation had the definition, "to communicate in search of mutual agreement." With this new introduction and this meaning, it showed a shift in “doing business” to “bargaining about” business.

Types of Negotiation.

Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position in a formal setting, to an informal negotiation between friends. Negotiation can be contrasted with mediation, where a neutral third party listens to each side's arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. It can also be compared with arbitration, which resembles a legal proceeding. In arbitration, both sides make an argument as to the merits of their case and the arbitrator decides the outcome. This negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation.

Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation: distributive and intergrative.

Distributive Negotiation

Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile, bluffing, and brinkmanship in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers view negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value.

The term distributive implies that there is a finite amount of the thing being distributed or divided among the people involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie." Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption that one person's gain results in another person's loss. A distributive negotiation often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the near future. Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house.

Integrative Negotiation

Integrative negotiation is also sometimes called interest-based or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation techniques. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie"). It focuses on the underlying interests of the parties, approaches negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle.

Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the establishing a relationship to achieve mutual gains. It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation.

In the book Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Roger Fisher and William L. Ury developed the method of principled negotiation and five principles it is based on. Their process of principled negotiation can be used effectively in almost any type of dispute. Their five principles are:

· "Separate the people from the problem"

· "Focus on interests, not positions"

· "Invent options for mutual gain"

· "Insist on using objective criteria"

· "Know your BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement)"

Source: Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Group (1981)

Adversary or Partner?

The two basically different approaches to negotiating will require different tactics. In the distributive approach each negotiator is battling for the largest possible piece of the pie, so it may be quite appropriate - within certain limits - to regard the other side more as an adversary than a partner and to take a somewhat harder line. This would however be less appropriate if the idea were to hammer out an arrangement that is in the best interest of both sides. A good agreement is not one with maximum gain, but optimum gain. This does not by any means suggest that we should give up our own advantage for nothing. But a cooperative attitude will regularly pay dividends. What is gained is not at the expense of the other, but with him.

Negotiation Styles

Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann identified 5 styles/responses to negotiation. These five strategies have been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model. The dual concern model of conflict is based on two themes or dimensions

1. A concern for self (i.e.assertiveness), and

2. A concern for others (i.e.empathy).

Based on this model, individuals balance the concern for personal needs and interests with the needs and interests of others. The following five styles can be used based on individuals’ preferences depending on their pro-self or pro-social goals. Before we proceed to explain about the different negotiation styles it is important to note two things. First, people tend to prefer a style. In fact, with practice people can effectively use all five negotiation styles. Second, there is no universal best negotiation style. The best style to use differs from negotiation to negotiation.

These styles are: accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, competing and compromising.

1. Accommodating: Individuals who negotiate with an accommodating style put great value and emphasis on preserving the relationship. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties.

2. Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted. When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic.

3. Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties.

4. Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something. Competitive negotiators are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships.

5. Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.

Source: Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)

Types of Negotiators

Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project. These types of negotiators are: Soft bargainers, hard bargainers, and principled bargainers.

· Soft. These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of bargaining. The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators. Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is agreement. They do not separate the people from the problem, but are soft on both. They avoid contests of wills and will insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their opinions.

· Hard. These people use strategies to influence, using such phrases as "this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it." They make threats, insist on their position, and apply pressure to negotiate. They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory. Additionally, they will search for one single answer, and insist you agree on it. They do not separate the people from the problem (as with soft bargainers), but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.

· Principled. Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions. They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved. They separate the people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards (which are independent of personal will). They base their choices on objective criteria rather than power, pressure or self-interest. These criteria may be drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, tradition, and so on.

Researchers from The Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they are facing in order to come to the best overall conclusion/solution, but this is often not the case (as when you may be dealing with an individual utilizing soft or hard bargaining tactics) (Forsyth, 2010).

Problem Analysis

Effective negotiators must have the skills to analyze a problem to determine the interests of each party in the negotiation. A detailed problem analysis identifies the issue, the interested parties and the outcome goals. For example, in an employer and employee contract negotiation, the problem or area where the parties disagree may be in salary or benefits. Identifying the issues for both sides can help to find a compromise for all parties.

Preparation

Before entering a bargaining meeting, the skilled negotiator prepares for the meeting. Preparation includes determining goals, areas for trade and alternatives to the stated goals. In addition, negotiators study the history of the relationship between the two parties and past negotiations to find areas of agreement and common goals. Past precedents and outcomes can set the tone for current negotiations.

Active Listening

Negotiators have the skills to listen actively to the other party during the debate. Active listening involves the ability to read body language as well as verbal communication. It is important to listen to the other party to find areas for compromise during the meeting. Instead of spending the bulk of the time in negotiation explaining the virtues of his viewpoint, the skilled negotiator will spend more time listening to the other party.

Emotional Control

It is vital that a negotiator have the ability to keep his emotions in check during the negotiation. While a negotiation on contentious issues can be frustrating, allowing emotions to take control during the meeting can lead to unfavourable results.

Verbal Communication

Negotiators must have the ability to communicate clearly and effectively to the other side during the negotiation. Misunderstandings can occur if the negotiator does not state his case clearly. During a bargaining meeting, an effective negotiator must have the skills to state his desired outcome as well as his reasoning.

Problem Solving

Individuals with negotiation skills have the ability to seek a variety of solutions to problems. Instead of focusing on his ultimate goal for the negotiation, the individual with skills can focus on solving the problem, which may be a breakdown in communication, to benefit both sides of the issue.

Decision Making Ability

Leaders with negotiation skills have the ability to act decisively during a negotiation. It may be necessary during a bargaining arrangement to agree to a compromise quickly to end a stalemate.

Interpersonal Skills

Effective negotiators have the interpersonal skills to maintain a good working relationship with those involved in the negotiation. Negotiators with patience and the ability to persuade others without using manipulation can maintain a positive atmosphere during a difficult negotiation.

Ethics and Reliability

Ethical standards and reliability in an effective negotiator promote a trusting environment for negotiations. Both sides in a negotiation must trust that the other party will follow through on promises and agreements. A negotiator must have the skills to execute on his promises after bargaining ends.

Tactics

Tactics are always an important part of the negotiating process. But tactics don't often jump up and down shouting "Here I am, look at me." If they did, the other side would see right through them and they would not be effective. More often they are subtle, difficult to identify and used for multiple purposes. Tactics are more frequently used in distributive negotiations and when the focus in on taking as much value off the table as possible. Many negotiation tactics exist. Below are a few commonly used tactics.

Auction: The bidding process is designed to create competition. When multiple parties want the same thing, pit them against one another. When people know that they may lose out on something, they will want it even more. Not only do they want the thing that is being bid on, they also want to win, just to win. Taking advantage of someone's competitive nature can drive up the price.

Brinksmanship: One party aggressively pursues a set of terms to the point at which the other negotiating party must either agree or walk away. Brinkmanship is a type of "hard nut" approach to bargaining in which one party pushes the other party to the "brink" or edge of what that party is willing to accommodate. Successful brinksmanship convinces the other party they have no choice but to accept the offer and there is no acceptable alternative to the proposed agreement.

Bogey: Negotiators use the bogey tactic to pretend that an issue of little or no importance to him or her is very important. Then, later in the negotiation, the issue can be traded for a major concession of actual importance.

Chicken: Negotiators propose extreme measures, often bluffs, to force the other party to chicken out and give them what they want. This tactic can be dangerous when parties are unwilling to back down and go through with the extreme measure.

Defence in Depth: Several layers of decision-making authority is used to allow further concessions each time the agreement goes through a different level of authority. In other words, each time the offer goes to a decision maker, that decision maker asks to add another concession in order to close the deal.

Deadlines: Give the other party a deadline forcing them to make a decision. This method uses time to apply pressure to the other party. Deadlines given can be actual or artificial.

Flinch: Flinching is showing a strong negative physical reaction to a proposal. Common examples of flinching are gasping for air, or a visible expression of surprise or shock. The flinch can be done consciously or unconsciously. The flinch signals to the opposite party that you think the offer or proposal is absurd in hopes the other party will lower their aspirations. Seeing a physical reaction is more believable than hearing someone saying, "I'm shocked."

Good Guy/Bad Guy: The good guy/bad guy approach is typically used in team negotiations where one member of the team makes extreme or unreasonable demands, and the other offers a more rational approach. This tactic is named after a police interrogation technique often portrayed in the media. The "good guy" will appear more reasonable and understanding, and therefore, easier to work with. In essence, it is using the law of relativity to attract cooperation. The good guy will appear more agreeable relative to the "bad guy." This tactic is easy to spot because of its frequent use.

Highball/Lowball: Depending on whether selling or buying, sellers or buyers use a ridiculously high, or ridiculously low opening offer that will never be achieved. The theory is that the extreme offer will cause the other party to reevaluate his or her own opening offer and move close to the resistance point (as far as you are willing to go to reach an agreement). Another advantage is that the person giving the extreme demand appears more flexible he or she makes concessions toward a more reasonable outcome. A danger of this tactic is that the opposite party may think negotiating is a waste of time.

The Nibble: Nibbling is asking for proportionally small concessions that haven't been discussed previously just before closing the deal. This method takes advantage of the other party's desire to close by adding "just one more thing."

Snow Job: Negotiators overwhelm the other party with so much information that he or she has difficulty determining which facts are important, and which facts are diversions. Negotiators may also use technical language or jargon to mask a simple answer to a question asked by a non-expert.

Negotiation Factors

Goal	Contract <––––––– > Relationship
Attitude	Win/Lose <––––––– > Win/Win
Personal Styles	Informal <–––––––– > Formal
Communications	Direct < –––––––– > Indirect
Time Sensitivity	High < –––––––– > Low
Emotionalism	High < –––––––– > Low
Agreement Form	Specific < –––––––– > General
Agreement Building	Bottom Line < ––––– > Top Down
Team Organization	One Leader < ––––– > Consensus
Risk Taking	High < –––––––– > Low

Negotiating Goal

The purpose of negotiations varies among cultures. For some cultures, the primary goal of negotiations is to reach a deal and sign a contract (North American culture), while other cultures (Asian cultures) view it as the establishment of a long term relationship between the parties which will eventually lead to a contract. Salacuse found that whereas 74 percent of the Spanish respondents claimed their goal in a negotiation was a contract, only 33 percent of the Indian executives had a similar view.

Negotiating Attitude

Parties from different cultures tend to come to the negotiation table with a win-lose or win-win attitude. The win-win negotiators view the negotiations as collaborative efforts where both parties gain, whereas the confrontational nature of the win-lose negotiators usually results in one side winning and the other losing. For example, whereas 100 percent of the Japanese respondents claimed that they approached negotiations as a win-win process, only 33% of the Spanish executives took that view.

Emotionalism: High or Low?

Some cultures show their emotions at the negotiation table, while others hide their feelings. According to the stereotype, Latin Americans show their emotions at the negotiating table, while the Japanese and many other Asians hide their feelings. Obviously, individual personality plays a role here. There are passive Latins and hot-headed Japanese. Nonetheless, various cultures have different rules as to the appropriateness and form of displaying emotions, and these rules are brought to the negotiating table as well. Deal makers should seek to learn them.

Risk taking: High or Low?

It is observed that some cultures are more risk averse than others. (Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1980). This influences the behaviour of the negotiating counterparts whether they will reveal information and how they deal with uncertainties. The Japanese, with their emphasis on requiring large amount of information and their group decision-making process, tend to be risk averse. Americans, by comparison, are risk takers.

Faced with a risk-averse counterpart, how should a deal maker proceed? The following are a few steps to consider:

1 Don’t rush the negotiating process. A negotiation that is moving too fast for one of the parties only heightens that person’s perception of the risks in the proposed deal.

2 Devote attention to proposing rules and mechanisms that will reduce the apparent risks in the deal for the other side.

3 Make sure that your counterpart has sufficient information about you, your company, and the proposed deal.

4 Focus your efforts on building a relationship and fostering trust between the parties.

5 Consider restructuring the deal so that the deal proceeds step by step in a series of increments, rather than all at once.

With the knowledge of the ten negotiating traits discussed above, you may be better able to understand the negotiating styles and approaches of counterparts from other cultures. Equally important, it may help you to determine how your own negotiating style appears to those same counterparts.

It is also essential to take into account five considerations for analyzing cross-cultural negotiations given by Fisher, a well-known intercultural expert:

(1) the players and the situation;

(2) styles of decision making;

(3) national character;

(4) cross-cultural noise;

(5) interpreters and translators.

Each consideration presents questions that should be answered before entering international negotiations.

UNIT 12

INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

 

PLAN

1. Introduction (definition, etymology, negotiation theory)

2. Types of negotiation

3. Negotiation styles

4. Types of negotiators

5. The essential elements of negotiation (strategies and techniques)

6. Key skills in negotiating

7. Tactics and how to overcome the top ten negotiating tactics

8. International negotiations (general principles and differences)

9. Challenges of negotiating across cultures

 

LECTURE

Let's first define what negotiation means. The Random House Dictionary ( 2nd Edition) defines "to negotiate" as “...to deal or bargain with another or others, as in the preparation of a treaty or contract or in preliminaries to a business deal.”

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has it as “...to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter. “

But one of the best definition I've come across was given by Robert D. Rutherford, Ph.D., author of The Twenty Five Most Common Mistakes Made in Negotiating...and What You Can Do About Them. He defines negotiation as: “...an effort to resolve a difference between two or more parties by the give-and-take process.”

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a mutually beneficial outcome, resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. The foundations of negotiation theory are decision analysis, behavioral decision analysis, game theory, and negotiation analysis. Another classification of theories distinguishes between structural analysis, strategic analysis, process analysis, integrative analysis and behavioral analysis of negotiations. Negotiation is a specialized and formal version of conflict resolution most frequently employed when important issues must be agreed upon. Negotiation is necessary when one party requires the other party's agreement to achieve its aim. The aim of negotiating is to build a shared environment leading to long-term trust and often involves a third, neutral party to extract the issues from the emotions and keep the individuals concerned focused. It is a powerful method for resolving conflict and requires skill and experience. Zartman defines negotiation as "a process of combining conflicting positions into a common position under a decision rule of unanimity, a phenomenon in which the outcome is determined by the process." Professional negotiators are often specialized, such as union negotiators, leverage buyout negotiators, peace negotiators, hostage negotiators, or may work under other titles, such as diplomats, legislators or brokers.

Etymology

The word "negotiation" originated in the early 15th century from the Old French and Latin expressions “negociacion” and “negotiationem.” These terms mean “business, trade and traffic.” By the late 1590s negotiation had the definition, "to communicate in search of mutual agreement." With this new introduction and this meaning, it showed a shift in “doing business” to “bargaining about” business.

Types of Negotiation.

Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position in a formal setting, to an informal negotiation between friends. Negotiation can be contrasted with mediation, where a neutral third party listens to each side's arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. It can also be compared with arbitration, which resembles a legal proceeding. In arbitration, both sides make an argument as to the merits of their case and the arbitrator decides the outcome. This negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation.

Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation: distributive and intergrative.

Distributive Negotiation

Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile, bluffing, and brinkmanship in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive bargainers view negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of value.

The term distributive implies that there is a finite amount of the thing being distributed or divided among the people involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie." Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption that one person's gain results in another person's loss. A distributive negotiation often involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the near future. Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house.

Integrative Negotiation

Integrative negotiation is also sometimes called interest-based or principled negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation techniques. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a "fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie"). It focuses on the underlying interests of the parties, approaches negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle.

Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the establishing a relationship to achieve mutual gains. It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation.

In the book Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Roger Fisher and William L. Ury developed the method of principled negotiation and five principles it is based on. Their process of principled negotiation can be used effectively in almost any type of dispute. Their five principles are:

· "Separate the people from the problem"

· "Focus on interests, not positions"

· "Invent options for mutual gain"

· "Insist on using objective criteria"

· "Know your BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement)"

Source: Roger Fisher and William L. Ury, Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Group (1981)

The Essential Elements of Negotiation

There are many different ways to categorize the essential elements of negotiation.

One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end.

Another view of negotiation comprises four elements: strategy, process, tools, and tactics. Strategy comprises the top level goals - typically including relationship and the final outcome. Processes and tools include the steps that will be followed and the roles taken in both preparing for and negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to this persuasion and influence, asserting that these have become integral to modern day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted.

Adversary or Partner?

The two basically different approaches to negotiating will require different tactics. In the distributive approach each negotiator is battling for the largest possible piece of the pie, so it may be quite appropriate - within certain limits - to regard the other side more as an adversary than a partner and to take a somewhat harder line. This would however be less appropriate if the idea were to hammer out an arrangement that is in the best interest of both sides. A good agreement is not one with maximum gain, but optimum gain. This does not by any means suggest that we should give up our own advantage for nothing. But a cooperative attitude will regularly pay dividends. What is gained is not at the expense of the other, but with him.

Negotiation Styles

Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann identified 5 styles/responses to negotiation. These five strategies have been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model. The dual concern model of conflict is based on two themes or dimensions

1. A concern for self (i.e.assertiveness), and

2. A concern for others (i.e.empathy).

Based on this model, individuals balance the concern for personal needs and interests with the needs and interests of others. The following five styles can be used based on individuals’ preferences depending on their pro-self or pro-social goals. Before we proceed to explain about the different negotiation styles it is important to note two things. First, people tend to prefer a style. In fact, with practice people can effectively use all five negotiation styles. Second, there is no universal best negotiation style. The best style to use differs from negotiation to negotiation.

These styles are: accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, competing and compromising.

1. Accommodating: Individuals who negotiate with an accommodating style put great value and emphasis on preserving the relationship. Accommodators are sensitive to the emotional states, body language, and verbal signals of the other parties.

2. Avoiding: Individuals who do not like to negotiate and don't do it unless warranted. When negotiating, avoiders tend to defer and dodge the confrontational aspects of negotiating; however, they may be perceived as tactful and diplomatic.

3. Collaborating: Individuals who enjoy negotiations that involve solving tough problems in creative ways. Collaborators are good at using negotiations to understand the concerns and interests of the other parties.

4. Competing: Individuals who enjoy negotiations because they present an opportunity to win something. Competitive negotiators are often strategic. Because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive negotiators often neglect the importance of relationships.

5. Compromising: Individuals who are eager to close the deal by doing what is fair and equal for all parties involved in the negotiation. Compromisers can be useful when there is limited time to complete the deal; however, compromisers often unnecessarily rush the negotiation process and make concessions too quickly.

Source: Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann, Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)

Types of Negotiators

Three basic kinds of negotiators have been identified by researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project. These types of negotiators are: Soft bargainers, hard bargainers, and principled bargainers.

· Soft. These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a gentle style of bargaining. The offers they make are not in their best interests, they yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with fellow negotiators. Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is agreement. They do not separate the people from the problem, but are soft on both. They avoid contests of wills and will insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their opinions.

· Hard. These people use strategies to influence, using such phrases as "this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it." They make threats, insist on their position, and apply pressure to negotiate. They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory. Additionally, they will search for one single answer, and insist you agree on it. They do not separate the people from the problem (as with soft bargainers), but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.

· Principled. Individuals who bargain this way seek integrative solutions. They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved. They separate the people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards (which are independent of personal will). They base their choices on objective criteria rather than power, pressure or self-interest. These criteria may be drawn from moral standards, principles of fairness, professional standards, tradition, and so on.

Researchers from The Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they are facing in order to come to the best overall conclusion/solution, but this is often not the case (as when you may be dealing with an individual utilizing soft or hard bargaining tactics) (Forsyth, 2010).