Negotiation styles: The impact on bargaining transactions

Dispute Resolution Journal, Feb-Apr 2003 by Craver, Charles B

Everyone wants to be an effective negotiator. But what makes a negotiator effective? This article looks at the characteristics of cooperative problem-solvers and competitive adversarial bargainers and discusses how they interact. It reports on the effectiveness of these two negotiation styles, as well as a hybrid style that employs qualities of both. Perhaps the most effective negotiators are competitive problem-solver who hope to obtain good deals for themselves, while simultaneously trying to improve the results for opponents.

Attorneys and business-people negotiate constantly. They negotiate within their own organizations with superiors, subordinates and colleagues. They negotiate with prospective and current clients and customers, and on behalf of their clients and customers with other public and private entities. Most negotiators employ relatively "cooperative" or "competitive" styles.1

Cooperative bargainers tend to behave more pleasantly, and they strive to generate mutually beneficial agreements. Competitive bargainers are often less pleasant, and they work to obtain optimal results for their own sides. Individuals look forward to interactions with cooperative opponents but often dread encounters with competitive adversaries.

Negotiator styles significantly affect bargaining interactions. This article looks at different negotiator styles and the impact of these styles on bargaining encounters.

Styles of Bargaining

Most negotiation books divide bargainers into two stylistic groups: the cooperative problem-solvers and the competitive "adversarials." Cooperative problem-solvers are epitomized by the book Getting to Yes.2 These negotiators move psychologically toward their opponents. They try to maximize the joint returns achieved by both sides. They seek reasonable results and begin with realistic opening positions. They also behave in a courteous and sincere manner, and they rely upon objective standards to guide discussions. They rarely resort to threats. They maximize the disclosure of relevant information and are open and trusting. Their goal is to work diligently to satisfy their underlying interests and those of their opponents. To achieve this end, they are willing to make unilateral concessions and try to reason with people on the other side.3

Cooperative problem-solvers are willing to disclose critical information and explore the underlying interests of the parties. They explore alternatives that may enable the bargainers to expand the overall pie through trade-offs that simultaneously advance the interests of both sides. For example, when money is involved, they may agree to future payments or in-kind remuneration that satisfy the underlying interests of the respective participants.

Competitive adversarial negotiators are epitomized by the book Secrets of Power Negotiating.4 These individuals move psychologically against their opponents, as they try to maximize their own returns. They seek extreme results and begin with unrealistic opening offers. They are not known for their sincerity. Their behavior is adversarial and even insincere. They feel more comfortable in openly competitive environments. They focus primarily on their own positions, not objective standards, and often resort to threats. They are not open and trusting and they tend to minimize the disclosure of their information. Their goal is to satisfy their own interests while making minimal concessions. They tend to have higher goals than cooperative problem-solvers and they are less concerned about joint returns.5 They are very manipulative.6

Competitive adversarials often engage in disingenuous game-playing. They conceal negative information that will hurt them and try to manipulate opponents into making offers that maximize the returns for themselves. They may even ignore alternative formulations that might benefit their opponents if those alternatives do not clearly advance their own interests.

In the early 1980s, Gerald Williams conducted a study among attorneys in Phoenix and Denver to determine how their colleagues behave. He asked the respondents to indicate what percentage of the individuals with whom they had recently interacted were cooperative problem-solvers and what percentage were competitive adversarials. He found that the respondents considered 65% of their colleagues to be cooperative problem-solvers, 24% to be competitive adversarials, and 11% to be unclassifiable.7

I often ask attorneys who attend my legal negotiation courses the same question. They usually suggest a 50-50 split and they are surprised when I tell them about Professor Williams' empirical findings. What would account for this discrepancy? When we interact with others, we tend to remember the negative experiences better. Thus, if we interact with 20 people today, 15 of whom are pleasant and cooperative, and five of whom are aggressive and rude, we remember the unpleasant experiences and therefore over-estimate the number of competitive adversarial opponents we have encountered. But when we see a list of the names of the 20 people with whom we interacted, we recognize that most were cooperative problem-solvers.