Thomas-Kilmann defines "Conflict Situations" as those in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In these situations, Kilmann describes a person's behavior along two basic dimensions: assertiveness - the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and cooperativeness - the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. It is important to remember that there are many strategies available in conflict situations. In order to better understand this new Competitive-Collaboration hybridization, a detailed look at what previous scholars such as Dr. Thomas Kenneth, Ralph Kilmann, and Ron Kraybill have written about the five basic negotiation styles is necessary.
Competing
The Competing style of negotiation is one of the most commonly used styles and is also known for being called the Domination style. The Competing style consists of low cooperation and high assertiveness; people who use this style are often contributing to negotiations as if there are always clear winners and losers - their intention is to b...
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
Negotiations styles are scholastically recognized as being broken down into two general categories and those are distributive bargaining styles and integrative negotiation styles. Distributive bargaining styles of negotiation are understood to be a competitive type of negotiation. “Distributive bargaining, also known as positional bargaining, negotiating zero-sum, competitive negotiation, or win-lose negotiation, is a type or style of negotiation in which the parties compete for the distribution of a fixed amount of value” (Business Blog Reviews, 2011). This type of negotiation skill or style approach might be best represented in professional areas such as the stock market where there is a fixed goal in mind or even in a garage sale negotiation where the owner would have a specific value of which he/she would not go below. In contrast, an integrative negotiation approach/style is that of cooperative bargaining, or win-win types ...
The first common theme is the importance of clear strategic intent and big picture thinking in negotiations. Before taking the Negotiation Behaviour unit, I always perceived negotiation as a fixed-pie, a zero-sum gain situation, where one party wins and the other party loses. This belief has often led me to a competitive behaviour in negotiation by trading the big picture thinking with the need to win, getting too detailed too quickly, leading to a positional approach instead of having a broad goal and explore for ways around problems to create value and get the best outcome.
My negotiation style questionnaire indicated that my negotiation style was collaborating and accommodating. In addition, I will not avoid negotiation. I felt the result was reasonable because I like negotiation and have never avoided negotiation when I have a chance. I always try to enlarge the size of the pie to be negotiated. However, the class taught me I sometimes accommodated too much and missed a chance to create value in the end. One of the reasons is that I am afraid of getting nothing and overly cautious. This leads me to compromise before maximizing the pie. I believe I can take more risks to create value.
There are many tactics that both sides can and do use to try and get the other side to yield first, when negotiations are under way. Uni...
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2006). Negotiation Readings, Exercises, and Cases Fifth Ed. Bill Brubaker, Mark Asher, A Power Play for Howard Negotiation (pp. 616-626). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Irwin.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2006). Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Negotiating styles are grouped into five types; Competing, Collaborating, Comprising, Avoidance, and Accommodating (Colburn, 2010). Even though it is possible to exhibit different parts of the five types of negation styles in different situations, can see that my tendencies seem to default to, Compromise and Accommodating. In reviewing the course work and reviewing my answers for Questionnaire 1 and 5, I find that the data reflects the same assumption. The accommodating profile is one where relationship perseveration is everything and giving what the other side wants is the route to winning people over. Accommodators are well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators (Colburn, 2010). When analyzing my accommodating tenancy in negations, I find often it is easier to give into the demands when they are within a reasonable range. I often consider it the part of providing a high level of customer service. It has been my experience that continued delaying and not coming to an agreement in a topic will only shorten the window in which you will have to meet the request since. The cons to this style are by accommodating highly competitive styles the accommodator can give up to much ground in the process. “Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come”. The other negations type I default to is compromising. Compromising “often involves splitting the difference; usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both parties’ opening positions” (Colburn, 2010). In the absence of a good rationale or balanced exchanged concessions, half way betwee...
Mark Young uses three comparisons to describe the negotiating styles of people; sharks, saints, and samurai. A shark is a negotiator whose concerns are purely tactical and practices “gamesmanship.” A shark uses ethics to play on their opponent’s fears and values and subdue them. Saints are defined as someone who will forgo real negotiation gains to remain trustworthy. They believe that their conduct is the ultimate basis for any judgment about the value of negotiations. Lastly, Samurai are people who prac...
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
McCarthy, A. (n.d.). 10 rules of negotiation. Negotiation Skills. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from http://www.negotiation-skills.org
Negotiation has been used as a vital communication tool not only in business but also in social intercourse. It helps people make common agreement and avoid conflict. So we need to use the tactics which we learned from this course and books to do more practice, only in this way we can gain advantages in negotiation.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Negotiation approaches are generally described as either distributive or integrative. At the heart of each strategy is a measurement of conflict between each party’s desired outcomes. Consider the following situation. Chris, an entrepreneur, is starting a new business that will occupy most of his free time for the near future. Living in a fancy new development, Chris is concerned that his new business will prevent him from taking care of his lawn, which has strict requirements under neighborhood rules. Not wanted to upset his neighbors, Chris decides to hire Matt to cut his grass.