Negotiation can be approached and categorized in various ways. Here are some common examples:
Integrative vs. Distributive
Integrative negotiations, often referred to as “win-win,” involve both parties working toward a solution that benefits everyone. This type of negotiation allows for trade-offs and the exploration of multiple issues, ultimately fostering trust and positive relationships.
In contrast, distributive negotiations are considered “win-lose.” In this scenario, one party achieves their goals at the expense of the other. For instance, negotiating a lease for office space may result in one party feeling satisfied while the other feels they sacrificed too much. Distributive negotiations often create opposing interests, which can hinder lasting relationships.
Inductive, Deductive, and Mixed
The inductive method starts with small details, gradually building toward a settlement. For example, this might apply when an employer and labour union negotiate specifics of an employee pension plan, addressing each detail sequentially.
Deductive negotiations begin with an established strategy and principles, framing the discussion while the parties work through the specifics.
Mixed negotiations combine elements of both inductive and deductive approaches and are the most common in practice.
Soft, Hard, and Principled
Soft and hard bargaining focus on negotiating positions rather than underlying interests. Soft negotiators aim to maintain a friendly atmosphere and often make concessions to preserve relationships. In contrast, hard negotiators are competitive and may withhold information, leading to better deals for themselves at the expense of the other party.
In their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton advocate for principled negotiation, which emphasizes interests over positions. This method encourages negotiators to separate people from the issues, focus on interests, generate multiple options, and base outcomes on objective criteria.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers a popular alternative when negotiations stall. Traditional arbitration and litigation can be costly and time-consuming, often resulting in unsatisfactory outcomes for both parties. ADR allows negotiators to engage in a structured dispute resolution process using mediators or facilitators, aiming for mutually acceptable solutions. If ADR fails, parties can consider arbitration or litigation as a last resort.
Non-Negotiable Positions vs. Options
Handling non-negotiable positions requires flexibility. As a negotiator, avoid entering discussions with rigid stances like, “This is my final offer.” If you remain inflexible, productive negotiation is unlikely. Instead, identify your limits while remaining open to alternatives.
For example, if you request a raise and your boss declines due to budget constraints, consider proposing other options that might satisfy your needs, such as attending a conference or taking a course. Being prepared with justifications for your request and alternative solutions increases your chances of success.
A skilled negotiator is adaptable, often asking questions rather than merely providing answers. They assess the situation and the expertise of those involved, tailoring their approach accordingly. For instance, an employer’s negotiator who rigidly insists on a specific strategy may alienate the other party, even if their approach is ideal. Establishing a collaborative approach at the outset is crucial, as is recognizing when a rigid formula may hinder progress and needs adjustment.
