When it comes to negotiating, we know that everyone negotiates something every day, and as a result, people develop different negotiating styles. People often use the same negotiation style to resolve future conflict instead of customizing the style to fit the specific situation. Be forewarned that always using the same negotiation style can result in unsuccessful outcomes. It would be best if you considered using various negotiation styles for each situation. In this post learn what the five negotiation styles are and when each can be used in your upcoming negotiations.

The Five Negotiation Styles

1. Competition

2. Collaboration

3. Compromise

4. Accommodation

5. Avoidance

Leading Factors When Choosing Your Negotiation Style

• The outcome- in terms of what you might lose in the negotiation

• The relationship- how the negotiation will affect your relationship with the other side

The Five Negotiation Styles In Detail

Competition (win-lose)

A competitive negotiation style follows the model of “I win, you lose.” Competitive negotiators tend to do whatever it takes to reach their desired agreement— even at the expense of another person or business entity. A competitive negotiator aims to win at all costs and uses all tools available to boost their negotiation success. Competitive negotiators are results-oriented and focus on achieving short-term goals quickly. Competitive style is valid when you need to reach a short-term agreement quickly, but this style can be costly and time-consuming and often leads to a deadlock. Competitive negotiation style is often used by inexperienced negotiators who believe it's the only viable style available or when the negotiator has successfully used it in the past. 

Collaboration (win-win)

In contrast to competition, a collaborative negotiation style follows the “I win, you win” model. Collaborative negotiators focus on ensuring all parties have their needs met in an agreement. They value fostering relationships without compromising their company’s best interest. In this negotiation style, both relationship and outcome are essential. The purpose of the collaboration style in negotiating is to maximize the outcome and preserve the relationship. A collaborative style is appropriate in situations where developing and maintaining a relationship is important. Both parties are willing to understand the other party’s needs and objectives and find a desired long-lasting and creative solution. 

Compromise (win-lose)

This negotiation style follows an “I win/lose some, you win/lose some” model also known as bargaining. Compromisers use this style instead of finding a solution that fully benefits everyone. This negotiation style is often referred to as “splitting the difference,” and results in an agreement about halfway between both party’s opening positions. Compromising may satisfy some of each party’s needs, but it doesn’t maximize the situation like collaboration can. This negotiation style can lead to negative feelings that you gave too much and didn’t get enough in return.

Accommodation (lose-win)

An accommodation negotiation style follows the “I lose, you win” model, which is not in the negotiators' best interest. Accommodating negotiators are the direct opposite of competitive negotiators. They focus on preserving relationships, building friendly rapport, and sacrificing the company’s interest in favor of the opposing party’s interest. Accommodators try to win people over by giving in to their requests, but kindness is not effective in every negotiation. When accommodating in a negotiation, the relationship is everything, and the outcome is not important. This negotiation style can build trust and enhance relationships. Still, the major drawback is that this negotiation style may come across as condescending towards the other party or it may cause them to feel uncomfortable because you gave them an easy win.

Avoidance (lose-lose)

An avoidance negotiation style follows an “I lose, you lose” model. People who identify with this style dislike conflict and tend to speak in vague terms about the issue at hand rather than addressing the actual issue itself. This style is used when both the outcome and the relationship are not significant. This negotiation strategy is implemented by withdrawing from active negotiations or by avoiding the negotiations entirely. This negotiation style is used infrequently. Since avoiders dislike conflict and struggle with direct communication, they come across as passive-aggressive, which can cause rifts in interpersonal business relationships.

The Negotiation Matrix

The Negotiation Matrix is a valuable tool that can help you choose the best negotiation strategy for any situation. This tool, developed by Roy Lewicki and Alexander Hiam in their book, "Mastering Business Negotiation," is based on the two main factors mentioned throughout this post: the importance of the outcome and the importance of the relationship in the negotiation. The Negotiation Matrix, displayed below, is best utilized before you enter a negotiation. It helps you to analyze your priorities so you can choose the best negotiation strategy suited to your particular needs.

Negotiation Matrix by Roy Lewicki and Alexander Hiam

Negotiation Style Implemention

In order to choose the appropriate negotiation style to implement during your upcoming negotiation, you will focus on style selection criteria which is based on two things:

1. What outcome is to be gained from the negotiation

2. Your past, present, and future relationship with the other party

You will aim to look closely at your situation and assess your circumstances to determine which strategy will work best. Ask yourself if you really care about the outcome and relationship, and if so, how much? Remember that all negotiation styles have advantages and disadvantages.

Conclusion

Using the same negotiation style every time you negotiate is a zero-sum approach. It is imperative to recognize that various styles of negotiating can be used in different circumstances. Thus it is important to select the appropriate negotiation style depending upon the dual factors of outcome and relationship.