Business people negotiate constantly within their organizations, with
superiors, subordinates, colleagues, customers and clients, suppliers and
vendors. Most conflicts and disputes are resolved through negotiation
as well. People gain reputations for their bargaining styles and effectiveness.
They are said to be “hard bargainers” or “fair and reasonable,” or “easy
to work with.” Is one bargaining style more effective than another?
Is a tough, competitive stance likely to produce better results than a
more accommodating, cooperative stance? The answer surprises most
people: tough bargainers usually finish last.
Negotiating styles can be characterized as either competitive or cooperative.
Competitive negotiators seek to maximize their interests at the expense
of the other party. Competitive negotiators tend to be adversarial,
insincere, and manipulative. They use threats and psychological pressure
against the other party. They fear being exploited, but exploit their counterparts.
They seek maximum information from the other side, and minimize disclosure
of their information. Negotiation is viewed as a competition to be
won or lost.
Cooperative negotiators, on the other hand, seek reasonable results for
both sides. They desire that their interests and the interests of the
other side be satisfied to the greatest extent possible. They tend
to be courteous and sincere. They rarely threaten, and they use reason
and logic to persuade the other side. Cooperative negotiators look
for ways to expand the resources between the parties. They view negotiation
as a joint problem to be solved, rather than a game to be won or lost.
Many people believe that a competitive negotiation style is more effective
than a cooperative style. This belief is not supported by research studies.
In the early 1980s, a study of lawyers in Phoenix and Denver established
that 59% of cooperative negotiators and 25% of competitive negotiators were
effective. Interesting, 3% of the cooperative negotiators and 33%
of the competitive negotiators were considered ineffective. A similar
study ten years later looked at negotiation effectiveness in Milwaukee and
Chicago. This study found that only 9% of competitive negotiators were
effective, while 54% of cooperative negotiators were effective. Like
the early study, only 3% of the cooperative negotiators were ineffective,
while 53% of the competitive negotiators were ineffective. Being cooperative
in negotiation seems to be more effective than being mean-spirited and competitive.
Why might this be?
Imagine that you are faced with a counter part with a reputation for
leaving nothing on the table. Your counterpart starts the negotiation
with a completely unrealistic set of requests, gives you little justification
for the requests, and demeans you personally. Aside from becoming angry
at the rudeness and disrespect, your reaction would be to protect yourself
against exploitation and give tit for tat. The likelihood of an efficient
negotiation leading to a solid agreement will be greatly reduced.
Now change the circumstance. You are visited by your counterpart.
After pleasantries, she expresses what she believes your interests to be,
then states her company’s interests. She indicates a desire to find
a good agreement for both companies and makes an opening proposal that
is reasonable and fair. More often than not, you will react in kind,
exploring the needs of both companies and looking for ways to satisfy those
needs with creative problem-solving. This negotiation will more likely
lead to an efficient, lasting agreement.
Finally, consider a third situation. You visit your counterpart.
Following my thesis, you express what you believe to be the respective
interests of the companies. You follow this with a proposal that
is objectively reasonable and fair. To your complete surprise, your
counterpart responds to the proposal with disdain and makes an unreasonable,
unworkable, entirely one-sided counter offer. What do you do?
You can revert to a competitive style of negotiation, knowing that the process
will be less efficient and more stressful. Alternatively, you can
be firm on your proposal, remain unruffled, and engage your counterpart
in discussion. By seeking to understand and by focusing on interests,
you can move a competitive negotiator to a cooperative stance.
The challenge in each of these situations is recognizing what you are
facing and bringing the appropriate negotiation skills to bear on the problem.
Cooperative negotiation is a subtler skill that must be learned and practiced.
The ability to turn a competitive, adversarial counterpart into a team
player requires sensitivity, judgment, patience, and a firm commitment
to cooperative bargaining. If managed successfully, the payoff will
be a balanced, fair agreement. Without these skills, your only choice is
to protect yourself against predation by becoming a predator yourself.
The research indicates that reaching a fair agreement will be greatly reduced
and the probability of an impasse heightened. Thus, if you don’t
have interest-based negotiation skills, you may wish to consider getting
some practical training to develop them.
Douglas E. Noll, Esq. is a lawyer specializing in peacemaking and mediation
of difficult and intractable conflicts throughout California. His firm,
Douglas E. Noll and Associates is based in Central California. He may
be reached through his website
and email at doug@nollassociates.com