Each participant in business negotiations wishes that they end effectively for him, help to maintain friendly relations with the other side. But how to achieve acceptance of your conditions by presenting them as profitable as possible for your partner? How not to approve ineffective decisions, not agree to an unproductive offer? The answer lies in choosing the right negotiation strategy. What they are, in which situation they are relevant, how they are used, we will analyze in this material.
What is it?
Negotiation strategies - general plans for achieving business objectives in business negotiations. A certain sequence of actions that will lead to the achievement of the designated goals.
Negotiation strategies are certain directions, behavior vectors designed for a specific situation.
This or that strategy is chosen based on an understanding of the negotiation situation itself. They analyze what accompanies it, what it provides for. The factors that influence this situation are evaluated. How can this participant in the negotiations influence its development? After analyzing the assessment of all of the above, a more appropriate negotiation strategy is chosen for this case.
What to choose?
How to choose the right strategy? In the process of preparing for negotiations, two important questions must be answered:
- How interested are you in achieving the result you defined?
- How concerned are you with your relationship with your partner, both present and future?
Set these questions before each business meeting. By answering them, you can easily find the right strategy for yourself.
Evasion
In an environment of negotiation strategies and tactics, this is also called an inaction technique. It is implemented in those situations when the achievement of any result of the meeting, the transaction is not important for the negotiator. When negotiations are important for him, they will help to maintain and strengthen relations with a partner.
At first glance, many will regard such a strategy as unprofitable on all sides. But at the same time, it is used quite often in a business environment. There are good reasons for this. In particular, if there is a situation in which negotiations are extremely unprofitable.
Here the negotiators try not to deviate from the positions indicated by them, so as not to conclude a disadvantageous, if not serious, transaction.
Two-way loss
Of course, when conducting business meetings, such tactics are rarely deliberately chosen. Rather, it is the result of insufficient preparation for negotiations. Negotiators with such qualities as stubbornness, authoritarianism, and arrogance “sin” tactics.
Interestingly, during the meeting they are only set to win. Moreover, they plan to achieve it by any means. Such negotiators either can not or do not want to restrain their emotions, which ruin the established relationship with a partner. And, of course, they do not achieve their goal. The second negotiator is also in the red from a futile meeting.
This is the most ineffective approach outlined 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 slides to "I think so, period!", "As I say, it will be so!" 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. This is not only interpersonal conflicts, but also misunderstandings between representatives of organizations, litigation. To resolve such conflicts, as a rule, is obtained only during the intervention in the affairs of a third party.
The application of such tactics will be effective only in one case: the parties understand that their interests are mutually exclusive and that they will not be able to achieve a peaceful solution to the problem. Disagreement between them will continue in any case. Therefore, the best option would be to accept it without mutual reproaches and expression of emotions.
Device
In a business meeting, you can use the so-called concession tactics. It is suitable for those cases when the negotiator is little concerned about whether he will be able to achieve any expected result or not. But at the same time, he is very interested in having his partner achieve his goals.
The result of such tactics is a reduction in their own requests, a reduction of interests in order that the partner would win.
Like the previous one, such a strategy in conducting business negotiations seems completely losing. On the face of her disadvantage. Indeed, as a result of such a deal, the negotiator does not receive anything valuable that he needs for himself. On the contrary, it loses, yields to something far from pleasing its own interests.
However, the reason for following such tactics is to maintain good relations with a partner. It is used when such relations are more important than self-interest and interests. The purpose of the negotiations here is to build new or strengthen existing business relationships. In particular, they are necessary when they are going to build reliable relationships with a partner after a single business meeting.
When is it necessary to adapt to a partner?
Also, such a style of negotiation is suitable for you if you admit that you may be mistaken in relation to some issue, that you may be wrong in certain aspects. While the topic under consideration is extremely important for the second side.
The tactics of adaptation are also successful in those cases when in response to your concession you expect any gratitude, preferences from the second participant in the negotiations. 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.
Match
How to negotiate? If their result is most important to you, you are indifferent to the outcome of the meeting for your partner, you need to dwell on the tactics of the competition. Dispute, distribution transaction, predominance - its other names.
Applying this strategy, the negotiator adheres exclusively to his own goals and interests. The main thing for him is to convince the other side to yield. Inside such tactics, both soft and hard competition are used. Consider the difference between the two.
If tough negotiations tactics are on the agenda, the negotiator is not shy about turning to such extreme means as threats, coercion, punishment, and unilateral actions. Although this technique does not look completely ethical, it is justifiably applied in certain situations.
For example, when the deal is vital for the negotiator, when it is necessary to quickly deal with the 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. In some ways, it even resembles a compromise. In this case, bargaining is appropriate. The parties may exchange mutual agreements.
But for the negotiator, nevertheless, self-interest remains in the foreground. And his only desire is to get the maximum personal benefit from negotiations. He seeks to improve only his position. As for relations with a partner, his interests and benefits do not matter much. All steps and actions have one goal - to achieve the best deal solution specifically for yourself.
Win-lose
Tough competition. One of the negotiators seeks to achieve the maximum for himself by “attacking” the interests of the other side. This tactic of negotiations is typical, for example, for the situation of "customer-executor".
The customer here has an undeniable advantage - these are financial resources. It is in his interests to conduct a deal with the maximum benefit for himself - to achieve a good discount, provide additional services, certain deadlines for issuing an order. If this work is important for the contractor, then under similar pressure he agrees to conditions that are obviously unfavorable for himself.
But subsequently, the contractor may depart from the rigid framework into which it was placed. For example, to delay the deadline for order fulfillment or to provide goods at a discount with any imperceptible, at first glance, defect.
Therefore, in a considerable number of cases, such a “tense” gain in negotiating turns out to be a minus for the customer. Of course, such a strategy is not at all aimed at establishing and maintaining good partnerships. She justifies herself only with short-term interactions.
A good situation for this tactic is when it is necessary to achieve a significant result in a limited 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 considered compromise a viable position. They regarded him primarily as a "lazy" solution to the problem (not the most successful attempt to satisfy mutual interests), or as a concession made by both parties.
But a compromise is used today in negotiations quite often. Here the same high interest of the negotiator in personal gain takes place. But at the same time, he is also interested in making sure that his partner remains the winner.
When is this tactic applied? When the negotiator sees that another participant in the transaction is showing his initiative in the negotiations, he does not hide a lively interest in the results of the meeting. But at the same time, he is ready to make some concessions, since he understands that without them negotiations will be in vain. In this case, the first negotiator chooses the same tactics in order to achieve certain results beneficial to both sides by mutual concessions.
However, the compromise technique is not universal. It is not applicable in the following situations:
- The parties are equivalent.
- Negotiators pursue mutually exclusive goals.
- Within the framework of this meeting, an argument is not acceptable.
- Cooperation between the parties is not possible.
- Fast, temporary resolution of complex problems is required.
Cooperation
Such a strategy seems successful from many sides. When applied, there should theoretically not be a division into a “loser-winner”. Both parties benefit, the business meeting is effective for negotiators.
If the transaction is distributive and the positions and 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 loss of benefit of the other. There is no "dividing the pie." The situation is not typical for the use of dispute tactics.
In cooperation, integration, negotiators try to focus on common goals that unite them. They want to come to a solution that will satisfy the important needs and interests of each of the parties. And do not insist on satisfying only their own interests.
We got acquainted with the main negotiation strategies. In preparation 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.