Find and circle the numbers on the following grid that correspond to your scores for each of the five letters. Circle your A score in the first vertical column on the left side of the grid marked “Competing—A.” Circle your B score in the next vertical column marked “Collaborating—B,” and so on over to the last vertical column on the right, which is for your E or “Accommodating” score.
Once you have one circle in each column of the grid, connect these five circles with straight lines so you have created a simple graph. Scores at the top of the graph (usually those above the 70th percentile) are your strongest bargaining style inclinations. Scores at the bottom of the graph (usually below the 30th percentile) are your weaker bargaining style inclinations. All scores between the 30th and 70th percentiles represent moderate, functional bargaining style inclinations. And the higher or lower the percentile, the stronger the inclination to use that move in ordinary negotiations.
For deeper insight into bargaining styles, their origins and their meanings, continue reading in Appendix A. First-time readers may want return to Chapter 1 and pick up the theme of bargaining styles there, leaving the further study of this subject for later.
FURTHER ANALYSIS OF YOUR PERSONAL BARGAINING STYLES
Interest in personal bargaining styles and the use of assessment instruments to probe this factor date back almost as far as do organized courses on negotiation. The reason is simple: bargaining styles can play crucial roles in negotiation. Entrepreneur Donald Trump is well known to be (and takes pride in being) competitive to his core. Cable News Network personality Larry King is well known to be (and takes pride in being) empathetic and easy to get along with. If these two men were to find themselves negotiating against one another, both would be wise to think about their own and their counterpart’s bargaining styles before making a move.
Bargaining styles, as I see them, are relatively stable, personality-driven behaviors and reactions that arise in negotiating encounters. These patterns reappear because we are, for reasons related to family, culture, gender, and early professional experience, predisposed toward particular courses of action in negotiation. Some people have a broad set of styles they can readily call upon to solve negotiation problems. Others are much more comfortable with some bargaining moves and not others. The true test of your bargaining styles is your emotional reaction to using various strategies—which strategies give you genuine satisfaction, even joy when you use them well? Which ones repeatedly cause you anxiety and frustration, leaving you feeling uncomfortable, irritated, or angry?
I developed the Bargaining Styles Assessment Tool for use in my negotiation programs. The evaluation grid records in percentile form the frequency with which business executives in my executive programs have reported their various scores. This evaluation grid allows you to plot the intensity of your preferences against a sample of over 1,500 global executives from a wide variety of professional fields. Below, I present capsule summaries of what each of the five conflict styles described by the assessment translates into when viewed as aspects of a complex bargaining style. I have observed many executives whose profiles exhibit both very strong and, just as interestingly, very weak predispositions for various strategies. These extremes often translate into systematic strengths and weaknesses as negotiators, depending on the situation they face.
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF NEGOTIATORS EXHIBITING THE FIVE BARGAINING STYLES
Over the years, I have discussed bargaining style profiles with thousands of executives and other professionals. In these conversations, I have tested various style-based hypotheses with them for confirmation or disconfirmation. Below I summarize this experience by commenting on the bargaining strengths and weaknesses that may be exhibited by negotiators in a relatively high (70th or higher) percentile or relatively low (30th or lower) percentile for each conflict mode. For shorthand, I refer to people with each trait by the name of the bargaining style itself (e.g., “high accommodator” or “low compromiser”). I am thus assuming in these comments that the person is “high” or “low” in the subject conflict style only—and “in the middle” for all other modes. This is a convenient rather than a realistic assumption, but it permits me to discuss some important implications of each trait. Individuals may exhibit strong or weak preferences for several strategies, and the interaction of these preferences will, of course, affect the way they experience and manage their bargaining behavior in any given situation.
ACCOMMODATING
Negotiators Strongly Predisposed toward Accommodating. Negotiators with a strong predisposition toward accommodation derive significant satisfaction from solving other peoples’ problems. They often have good relationship-building skills and are relatively sensitive to others’ emotional states, body language, and verbal signals. This is a great trait to summon when working on negotiating problems within teams, bargaining in sales-based “relationship management” roles, or providing many types of customer services.
In terms of weaknesses, high accommodators sometimes place more weight on the relationship aspect of negotiations than the situation may warrant. In such cases, they are vulnerable to more competitively oriented people. High accommodators who feel taken advantage of in such situations may then experience resentment, further impeding their effectiveness.
Weakly Predisposed toward Accommodating. Negotiators with low accommodation scores have a tendency to hold out for their view of the “right” answer to a negotiating problem. They stay within their own frame of reference, seeing their solution as objectively correct. In short, low accommodators are sometimes more concerned with being “right” than with being persuasive. Where the low accommodator is an expert who understands the negotiation problem better than others at the table, this trait will assure that a group spends plenty of time considering the objectively “best” outcome. However, others may perceive the low accommodator as stubborn to the point of being unreasonable. This perception can interfere with effective group decision making. In addition, more accommodating people may mistake the low accommodator’s preoccupation with the “right” answer (and associated lack of attention to other people’s feelings and emotions) as a signal that the low accommodator does not care about them as individuals. Again, this can lower people’s willingness to cooperate.
COMPROMISING
Negotiators Strongly Predisposed toward Compromising. People with a strong predisposition toward compromising are usually eager to close the deal by “closing the gap” in negotiations. They scan the environment for fair standards and formulae that can help them achieve closure as quickly as possible. When time is short, or when the stakes are small, a predisposition toward compromise can be a virtue. Others will see the high compromiser as a relationship-friendly “reasonable person.” However, high compromisers often rush the negotiation process unnecessarily and make concessions too quickly. They do not question their own assumptions and rarely ask enough questions of the other side. They may also be satisfied with the first fair standard that presents itself as the basis for concluding the deal when other, equally fair standards might support a more advantageous deal.
Weakly Predisposed toward Compromising. People with a weak predisposition for compromise are, almost by definition, men and women of principle. Their great strength is their ability to summon passion and commitment when serious matters of principle and precedent are at stake in a negotiation. Their great weakness is their tendency to “make an issue” of everything—finding issues of principle where others see only issues relating to money or relative convenience. By arguing at length about things others see as secondary, the low compromiser risks being seen by others as stubborn—a person who is more concerned with winning an argument than closing a deal. Their distaste for such arbitrary allocation norms as splitting the difference can also make it more difficult for the low compromiser to close a deal when time is short.
A comparison between low accommodators and low compromisers is instructive. Low accommodators can (more quickly tha
n most) become attached to their own preferred “correct” solutions. Low compromisers, by comparison, become attached to their own preferred “correct” principles and fairness arguments. In both cases, they may irritate other people, acquiring reputations for being stubborn.
AVOIDING
Negotiators Strongly Predisposed toward Avoiding. High avoiders are adept at deferring and dodging the confrontational aspects of negotiation. As a positive attribute, avoidance can be experienced by others as graceful tact and diplomacy. It can also permit groups to function better in the face of dysfunctional, hard-to-resolve interpersonal differences. High avoiders are skilled at using such conflict-reducing methods as clear rules, unambiguous decision-making authority, and hierarchies to substitute for negotiations. High avoiders are also at home using techniques like e-mail, memos, hired agents, and other intermediaries that minimize the need for face-to-face confrontation. When interpersonal conflict is a functional aspect of organizational or group life, high avoiders can be a bottleneck in the flow of important information about the intensity of people’s preferences. And when interpersonal conflicts fester, they sometimes get worse, leading to all manner of problems. Finally, high avoiders pass up many opportunities to ask for things that would make them better off when others would be perfectly happy to accommodate their need. This may result in their becoming dissatisfied with a situation when a solution to meet their needs is only a question away.
Weakly Predisposed toward Avoiding. Low avoiders have little fear of interpersonal conflict. Indeed, they may in some cases enjoy it. As negotiators, they have a high tolerance for assertive, candid bargaining. They can fight hard against their bargaining counterpart all day and share drinks and stories with the same person in the evening. Low avoidance scores are helpful in such professions as labor-management relations, litigation, and mergers and acquisitions work. But beware: People with low scores in avoiding sometimes lack tact, and are often viewed as overly confrontational. In bureaucratic settings, low avoiders may be seen as troublemakers who refuse to leave well enough alone. The low avoider is characteristically frustrated by bureaucracy and office politics, which are alien settings to him or her.
COLLABORATING
Negotiators Strongly Predisposed toward Collaborating. High collaborators enjoy negotiations because they enjoy solving tough problems in engaged, interactive ways. They are instinctively good at using negotiations to probe beneath the surface of conflicts to discover basic interests, perceptions, and new solutions. They relish the continuous flow of the negotiation process and encourage everyone to be involved. They are assertively and honestly committed to finding the best solution for everyone. By the same token, people with a strong predisposition for collaborating sometimes needlessly create problems by transforming relatively simple situations into more complex (and interesting) occasions to practice their skills. This can irritate other people who want closure, who lack time to invest in a matter, or who do not wish to risk triggering interpersonal conflict over a small, albeit nagging, issue. High collaborators also need other, less collaborative skills to claim their fair share of the gains they help create. A high collaborator with a very low competing score can be at risk against a highly competitive counterpart.
Weakly Predisposed toward Collaborating. Low collaborators dislike using the bargaining process as a forum for creativity. These negotiators prefer having problems clearly specified before the negotiation begins and like to stick to the agenda and their preset goals once a meeting starts. They often bring a methodical pace, solid planning, and a need for clarity to their practice. When the matters being negotiated are so inherently complex that real-time brainstorming is the best way to proceed, low collaborators may become a bottleneck, slowing the process down. One way for low collaborators to compensate for this weakness is to make liberal use of breaks in the bargaining process to gather their thoughts and reset their strategy.
COMPETING
Negotiators Strongly Predisposed toward Competing. Like high collaborators, high competitors also enjoy negotiating. But they enjoy it for a different reason: Negotiating presents an opportunity for winning and losing, and they like to win. For this reason, high competitors prefer to frame negotiations as games with moves that can result in gains or losses, depending on one’s relative skill. Highly competitive negotiators have strong instincts about such matters as leverage, deadlines, how to open, how to position final offers, ultimata, and similar aspects of traditional negotiations. Competitors have energy and motivation in transactional negotiations in which the stakes are high. However, because their style can dominate the bargaining process, competitive people can be hard on relationships. The “loser” in a negotiating game, for example, may feel taken, coerced, or abused. This can affect future dealings. In addition, competitive negotiators instinctively focus on the issues that are easiest to count in terms of winning and losing—like money. They may overlook nonquantitative issues that can also yield value.
Weak Predisposition toward Competing. People with a weak predisposition for competing do not think that negotiations are simply about winning and losing. They see negotiations as a dance, not a game. It is a dance in which the goal is for the parties to treat each other fairly, avoid needless conflict, solve problems, or create trusting relationships. Others often view people with low competing scores as especially nonthreatening. This can be a strength in many professional settings in which the ability to gain trust is a critical skill. However, when there are large stakes on the table, the low competitor will be at a disadvantage.
SOME QUESTIONS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY ASK REGARDING BARGAINING STYLES
In using the Bargaining Styles Assessment Tool, I have encountered a number of reoccurring questions from students and executives. Below, I share some of the more common questions, along with some suggested answers.
1. Is there an “optimal” score for negotiators?
No. There is no “right” set of style preferences for negotiation effectiveness. Rather, people with instincts or aversions for each of the five styles tend to display certain systematic strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses, in turn, either help or hurt, depending on the situation and who is sitting across the table. For people who engage in transactional negotiations as a profession, higher competitive and collaborative scores will be an indication that they enjoy their work. For people who do a lot of relationship-based sales or consulting, higher accommodating and compromising scores may be a sign that they feel comfortable in their jobs. Professional diplomats, by contrast, sometimes report higher-than-usual scores for avoiding conflict.
In other words, your scores may be one indication of how naturally your style “fits” the professional setting in which you negotiate. But there is no single profile that works best for all negotiators.
2. What does it mean if a person prefers several styles?
Each person has a unique combination of preferences. Many have strong predispositions toward several styles. People tend to assess their counterparts, analyze the situation they face, check to see if their most preferred (and therefore familiar) style is appropriate, and proceed. If their most preferred style is inappropriate (e.g., they are a high avoider and they are selling their used car), they tend to shift to their next most preferred style. This shifting of approaches can also occur in the middle of a negotiation if the preferred style is not working to advance the process.
Some style combinations yield characteristic results. For example, someone high in both competing and collaborating tends, as noted earlier, to be comfortable in many negotiating situations in which the stakes are large. Someone high in both competing and avoiding, meanwhile, is somewhat one-dimensional as a negotiator and tends to project a “we’re-doing-this-my-way-or-I’m-hitting-the-road” attitude. If this person cannot use his or her competitive tactics, they tend to exit the situation or delegate the bargaining to someone else. Those with high scores in both accommodating and compromising, by contrast, are very relat
ionship-oriented and will tend to be seen as relatively easy to get along with as they move fluidly between an orientation toward solving the other person’s problem and an orientation toward simple, fast, fair allocations.
3. What if a person’s scores are all in the middle percentiles—i.e., he or she has no strong preferences?
Scores in the midrange percentiles often indicate that the style in question is relatively accessible and can be called out as the occasion demands. Some people score in this middle range for all five attributes, indicating that they have a very adaptable style that can serve them well in most situations. These negotiators may still be at a relative disadvantage, however, when facing off against equally experienced people who have much more definite preferences. For example, “moderately” competitive negotiators facing highly competitive counterparts in a situation that rewards a competitive approach may need to summon all their energies and instincts to stay even with their counterparts’ moves. The counterparts will experience less stress and “stretch” in this situation.
4. Does my bargaining style affect the way I perceive other negotiators?
Unquestionably. Research shows that most of us believe that other people are like ourselves. As one old saying puts it, “The thief thinks everybody steals.” And cooperative people assume that others are cooperative. Thus, when a competitive person meets a cooperative person at the bargaining table, each is likely to assume the other is someone other than he or she actually is—leading to significant confusion. The cooperative person may share information, make a fair opening offer, and engage in other efforts to be open and reasonable, assuming that these efforts will be reciprocated. The competitive person, thinking that these moves are either evidence of naivety or designed to trick him into giving up leverage, takes advantage of the situation to secure a favorable position and then pounces, sweeping his or her money off the table. The cooperative person now feels betrayed and reacts angrily. And this behavior confirms the competitive person’s initial hypothesis that the opponent was, in fact, in it for herself all along. Things go downhill from there.
Bargaining for Advantage Page 30