Business Negotiations
“ Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let
us never fear to negotiate ( John F. Kennedy) “
Ungureanu Tatiana
ULIM, 2017
I. Case Study on Negotiation strategies
Compromising style
Motto: “You win some, you lose some.”
The use of compromise is a common solution to resolving
disagreements in negotiation and mediation processes. While it may
produce an agreement, compromise does not always resolve problems
that contain underlying interpersonal or organizational conflict. This is
because compromise is frequently a “settled” resolution to a problem
and not typically the optimal solution sought by either party. It may
generate a functional or material solution but not resolve emotional or
behavioral issues associated with the disagreement. As a result one or
both parties in the dispute may continue to harbor ill feelings or other
dissatisfaction that can surface again if the parties continue to have
contact with each other.
Compromise is described in the Mouton-Blake Managerial Grid as
being a win and lose agreement in which both parties get something of
what they want but not all of what they want. Most disputes typically
start with a competitive or collaborative strategy where the best
possible outcome is the goal for both sides. However a number of
factors such as time requirements, financial costs, use of power and
influence, and practical matters often enter into the equation. The
realization that initial desired goals may be unachievable move parties
to a negotiation process involving give and take in order to reach a
compromised mutual agreement.
Compromise is a strategy commonly associated with purchasing a car
or home, settling a divorce, or resolving labor contract disputes. When
an agreement is reached and the parties separate, the compromise
process can help both parties feel satistied that they have reached an
acceptable solution. However in disputes such as a divorce or labor
contract agreement the parties typically resume a functional
relationship after the negotiation and the compromise agreement
might not produce a truly satisfactory solution to the problems. As a
result lingering anger, resentment or dissatisfaction may trigger
subsequent conflicts.
Agree to Disagree
Using compromise to settle a conflict or dispute requires the parties
involved to be consciously aware that the outcome might be less than
they had originally hoped for. The final decision may be one that is
acceptable but not optimal. There can be reluctance or resistance to
using compromise as an approach to conflict resolution when the
result seems like a loss. However if the focus is on what is achieved,
rather than on what has been given up, there is a greater likelihood
that the parties will leave with feelings of satisfaction and acceptance.
Compromise is more successful when the parties have a range of
tangible outcomes that are open for consideration such that the final
decision is one that remains “within the box” for both parties.
There may be a need to “agree to disagree” on some points when the
dispute seems intractable and the reality that they will not be able to
totally agree sets in. Agreeing to disagree is required more often when
there is disagreement over values or principles rather than facts or
methods. When both parties are able to truly listen and attempt to
respectfully understand the position of the opposing party they can
often come to accept their disagreements. The mutual acceptance of
difference increases the likelihood of a productive resolution to the
dispute.
Compromise can be an effective method for managing conflict and
difference but it is not always the best choice. Resorting to
compromise when other conflict modes (avoiding, accommodating,
competing or collaboration) may be more appropriate can result in a
process or outcome that is not helpful for the situation at hand. It is
important that vital issues or signiticant requirements are not lost in
the course of compromise. Sometimes other creative solutions are
needed. All difference and disagreements do not need to be
negotiated. effective individuals know when to use compromise and
when other approaches to problem solving are needed.
If you use a compromising style, then you are both assertive and
cooperative. You are willing to trade some of your needs in order to
win concessions from the other side. This style can be effective when
both parties are equally powerful and willing to cooperate, and they
want to preserve the relationship for the future.
Example of compromise :
One of the challenges to the competing style is that options have to be
evaluated fairly – and they may be valued differently by each side. For
example, you offer to pay $30,000 for a new car, but the salesman
wants $32,000. The salesman offers to throw in a premium sound
system with a value of $1500 and charge you $31,500. If you value the
sound system, this might be a good deal, but if you don’t, it won’t help
to seal the deal.
The biggest problem with the compromising style is that both parties
may end up giving away too much and neither ends up satistied. You
have to be careful in a compromise that you aren’t giving away
something you can’t live without. Because each side goes into the
