Negotiation strategies. Preparing for negotiations

2024 Author: Howard Calhoun | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 10:16

Each participant in business negotiations wants them to end productively for him, to help maintain friendly relations with the other side. But how to achieve acceptance of your conditions, presenting them in the most beneficial way for a partner? How not to approve ineffective decisions, not to agree to an unproductive proposal? The answer lies in choosing the right negotiation strategy. What they are, in what situation they are relevant, how they are used, we will analyze in this material.

What is this?

Negotiation strategies - general plans to achieve the goals set in business negotiations. A certain sequence of actions that will lead to the achievement of the designated goals.

Negotiation strategies are specific directions, vectors of behavior designed for a specific situation.

This or that strategy is chosen based on the understanding of the negotiation situation itself. Analyze what accompanies it, how it is provided. Evaluate the factors influencing this situation. How can this negotiator influence its development? After analyzing the assessment of all of the above, the more correct one for thiscase negotiation strategy.

What to choose?

How to choose the right strategy? In preparation for negotiations, two important questions need to be answered:

• How committed are you to achieving your defined outcome?
• How concerned are you about your relationship with your partner, both present and future?

Ask yourself these questions before every business meeting. By answering them, you can easily find the right strategy for you.

Evasion

In the world of negotiation strategies and tactics, this is also called the no-action technique. It is implemented in situations where the achievement of any result of the meeting, the deal is not important for the negotiator. When negotiations are important for him because they will help maintain and strengthen relations with a partner.

At first glance, many will regard such a strategy as disadvantageous from all sides. But at the same time, in a business environment, it is used quite often. There are good reasons for this as well. In particular, if there is a situation in which it is extremely unprofitable to negotiate.

Here the negotiators try not to deviate from their positions, so as not to conclude an unprofitable, or even serious loss deal.

Bilateral loss

Of course, when conducting business meetings, such tactics are rarely chosen consciously. Rather, it is the result of insufficient preparation for negotiations. Tactics "sin" negotiators who havequalities such as stubbornness, authoritarianism, arrogance.

Interestingly, when holding a meeting, they are set only to win. Moreover, they plan to achieve it by any means. Such negotiators are either unable or unwilling to restrain their emotions, thereby destroying the established relationship with a partner. And, of course, they don't get what they want. The second negotiator is also in the red from a fruitless meeting.

This is the most inefficient approach of all here. It indicates the incompetence of the negotiator, the lack of flexibility of behavior and disrespect for the partner. Most often, one of the parties slips to "I think so, period!", "As I say, so be it!" and other phrases that discredit the interlocutor. Such severe pressure does not contribute to the solution of the case.

When is mutual loss beneficial?

However, in practice, following such tactics is by no means uncommon. These are not only interpersonal conflicts, but also misunderstandings between representatives of organizations, litigation. To resolve such conflicts, as a rule, it turns out only during the intervention of a third party.

Effective use of such tactics will be only in one case: the parties understand that their interests are mutually exclusive, that they will not be able to achieve a peaceful solution to the problem. Disagreement between them will remain in any case. Therefore, the best option would be to accept it without mutual reproaches and expression of emotions.

Adaptation

At a business meeting, you can use the so-called tacticsconcessions. It is suitable for those cases where the negotiator has little concern about whether he can achieve any expected result or not. But at the same time, he is very interested in making sure that his partner achieves his goals.

The result of this tactic is to reduce your own requests, reduce your interests so that the partner wins.

Like the previous one, this strategy seems to be absolutely losing when conducting business negotiations. On the face of her disadvantage. After all, as a result of such a deal, the negotiator does not receive anything valuable, necessary for himself. On the contrary, it loses, gives way to something far from serving its own interests.

However, the reason for following this tactic is to maintain a good relationship with your partner. It is used when such relationships are more important than their own benefit and interests. The purpose of negotiations here is to build new or strengthen existing business relationships. In particular, they are necessary when they are going to build a reliable relationship with a partner after a single business meeting.

When should you adjust to your partner?

Also, this style of negotiation will suit you if you admit that you can be wrong about some issue, that in certain aspects you can be wrong. While the topic under consideration is extremely important for the second side.

The adaptation tactic is also successful in those cases when, in response to your concession, you expect some kind of gratitude, preferences from the second participantnegotiations. It is also used when your position is weak. That is, you realize that the decisive word in the negotiations in any case will not be yours.

Competition

How to negotiate? If their result is most important to you, you are indifferent to the results of the meeting for your partner, you need to dwell on the tactics of the competition. Dispute, distribution transaction, dominance - its other names.

In applying this strategy, the negotiator is driven solely by his own goals and interests. The main thing for him is to convince the other side to give in. Within such tactics, both soft and hard competition is used. Consider the difference between them.

If tough negotiating tactics are on the agenda, then the negotiator does not hesitate to resort to such extreme means as threats, coercion, punishment, and unilateral actions. Although this technique seems not entirely ethical, it is justified in certain situations.

For example, when a deal is vital for the negotiator, when it is necessary to quickly deal with a problem, when the resistance of the other side is fraught with fatal consequences. The followers of this tactic resort not only to tough, but also atypical, unpopular actions.

Depending on the importance of the topic of negotiations, you can choose a soft version of the competition. At some points, it even resembles a compromise. In this case, bargaining is appropriate. The parties may exchange concessions.

But for the negotiator, his own interests are still in the foreground. And his only aspiration- get personal benefit from the negotiations to the maximum extent. He seeks to improve only his position. As for the relationship with a partner, his interests and benefits are not of great importance. All steps and actions have one goal - to achieve the best deal for yourself.

Win-lose

A tough manifestation of competition. One of the negotiators seeks to achieve the maximum for himself by "attacking" the interests of the other side. Such negotiation tactics are typical, for example, for the "customer-executor" situation.

The customer here has an undeniable advantage - it's financial resources. It is in his interests to make a deal with the maximum benefit for himself - to achieve a good discount, the provision of additional services, certain terms for issuing an order. If this work is important to the performer, then under such pressure he agrees to conditions that are obviously unfavorable for himself.

But later the performer may deviate from the rigid framework in which he was placed. For example, delay the deadline for the completion of an order or provide a product at a discount with some imperceptible, at first glance, defect.

Therefore, in a considerable number of cases, such a "stretched" gain in negotiations turns into a minus for the customer. Of course, such a strategy is not at all aimed at establishing and maintaining good partnerships. It justifies itself only in short-term interactions.

A good situation for this tactic is when you need to achieve a significant result inlimited period of time. However, one must understand that the degree of pressure on the second participant is inversely proportional to his desire to conduct further negotiations.

Compromise

Not all strategists saw compromise as a viable position. It was regarded primarily as a "lazy" solution to the problem (not the most successful attempt to satisfy mutual interests), or as a concession made by both sides.

But compromise is often used in negotiations these days. Here the same high interest of the negotiator in personal gain takes place. But at the same time, he is also interested in the fact that his partner also wins.

When is this tactic used? When the negotiator sees that the other party to the transaction is showing his initiative in the negotiations, he does not hide his keen interest in the results of the meeting. But at the same time, he is ready to make some concessions, as he understands that without them the negotiations will be in vain. In this case, the first negotiator chooses the same tactics in order to achieve certain results beneficial to both parties through mutual concessions.

However, the compromise technique is not universal. It is not applicable in the following situations:

• The sides are equivalent.
• Negotiators pursue mutually exclusive goals.
• Dispute is unacceptable within this meeting.
• Cooperation between the parties is not possible.
• Quick temporary resolution of complex issues needed.

Cooperation

Such a strategy seems to be successful in many ways. In its application, theoretically, there should be no division into "loser-winner". Both parties benefit, the business meeting is productive for the negotiators.

If the transaction is distributive and positions, the goals of the parties are mutually exclusive, integration negotiations are held. In their course, the aspirations of one negotiator need not come into conflict with the aspirations of another.

Also, the benefit of one side does not mean the loss of the benefit of the other. There is no "dividing the pie" here. The situation is not typical for the use of dispute tactics.

When collaborating, integrating negotiators try to focus on common goals that bring them together. They want to come to a solution that satisfies the important needs and interests of each of the parties. And they do not insist on satisfying only their own interests.

We got acquainted with the basic strategies for negotiating. While preparing for the meeting, you should already choose one of these tactics for yourself. Which one depends on your interest in the result of the transaction and further relations with the partner.