Competitive vs. Compromising negotiation styles: a fool’s choice

I recently read an article titled, “How men and women use deception in negotiations,” that demonstrates a common misperception about negotiation. The author explains her research questions as follows:

In our research we asked whether the use of deception was affected not just by a negotiator’s gender, but also his or her opponent’s gender; whether negotiators were accommodating, placing priority on their relationship with their opponent, or competitive, placing priority on achieving the best possible individual outcome; and by how trustworthy an opponent was. 

The foundation of the research is based on the fallacy of insufficient options: it presupposes that a negotiator must either place more value on the relationship than on the outcome; or the negotiator must sacrifice the relationship with the other side to achieve their own optimal outcome. There is another, more preferred way: interest based negotiation. By understanding the principles and strategies of interest based negotiation, negotiators achieve optimal outcomes for both (or all) parties to a negotiation, and at the same time, preserve or enhance the relationship between the negotiating parties.

Interest based negotiation is neither accommodating, nor competitive: it places the focus of the negotiation not on positions – but on the underlying interests that form the positions. As Roger Fisher states in his book, “Getting to Yes,” in an interest based negotiation, the negotiators are tough on the issues and soft on the people. Interest based negotiation allows negotiators to be civil, to explore interests, and expand the options of acceptable agreements.

When I was first introduced to interest based negotiation, I had little to no concern for the other party’s outcome – I cared only about the outcome for my client. After all, I was hired to represent my client, not the other side. Interest based negotiation seemed like a soft and weak negotiation style and strategy. That belief changed the more I studied interest based negotiation. I came to realize that if I didn’t care about the other side, I ran the risk of reaching an agreement that wouldn’t be honored. If I “pulled the wool over the other side’s eyes” it wouldn’t take long before they became disillusioned with the agreement. Soon after that realization comes the inevitable conclusion that breaching the agreement is in their best interest. An agreement that satisfies the interests of both sides is a more durable agreement, and an agreement is only useful as long as it is being honored by both sides.

I also came to learn that interest based negotiation produces better outcomes for both sides. There are many published studies that prove this. Interest based (sometimes referred to as integrative negotiation), produces better results than any other style or strategic choice, including competitive, accommodating, or compromising.

The only downside to interest based negotiation is that the negotiator must truly understand the philosophical underpinnings of the strategy, and have a firm command of the skills required to break through positions and get to underlying interests. Like all forms of negotiation, it is a skill that can be learned and developed. If interest based negotiation is new to you, start by reading Fisher and Ury’s classic book, “Getting to Yes.”  There are many resources available on interest based negotiation, but “Getting to Yes” is the origin of the strategy and is a good place to start.