Having recently explored and deconstructed the myths that prevail in approaches of collaborative negotiation I thought I’d flip the coin to similarly highlight the myths associated with competitive negotiation. Our clients most frequently wish to focus on engendering collaborative approaches to improve the level of negotiation capability for participants; competitive strategies and behaviours are often revealed or come under discussion as well.
One of the myths of competitive negotiation is a belief that it is possible to shift the balance of power in your favour by being extreme with the positions taken in preparation, not sharing information, and creating proposals that only address your needs with scant regard of the other party’s. Whilst for some this appears a favourable approach, the likelihood that it will lead to a positive outcome for both parties is slim to say the least. The only situation where such a strategy can work is if the balance of power is 100% in one-party’s favour. If it is, then there is no need to negotiate. In my negotiation training career, I worked with a one of the major mobile phone carriers in the early days of the smartphone industry, who shared an insight into the major device player in the industry (I suspect you can figure out who that was) having no need to negotiate, they simply told each customer how many devices they were prepared to sell to them and at what price. In Scotwork’s parlance we call that ‘Imposing your will’. However, we caution you do this at your peril, as if you choose to use all of the power you have, the other party will use it against you if the context changes, I have seen this happen in a business I worked for some years ago and it wasn’t pretty.
The taking of positions when not aligned to the ‘balance of power’ can also result in the counterparty altering their approach. If you get your proposal on the table first with an extreme position, the other party may respond by delivering a proposal beyond where they had originally intended to open. This can place both parties on separate islands of chaos, with each digging their heels in to protect their position, thus wasting time and money and hindering the prospect of the negotiation moving forward. I have recently experienced this related to a property on which my wife had made an offer. We were made aware that our vendor could not move forward as their partner was not being able to move forward unless they sold their property. Having resolved this, a number of additional issues arose, the new owners of the flat below started an extension project early, not helped by the vendor’s partner not responding to a request to sign a party wall agreement. There was also a need for both parties to sign a document to secure the freehold of the building. Rather than simply sitting down to discuss a way forward (they live in the same building), they have chosen dialogue via their lawyers. Having taken four weeks with zero progress, we had to withdraw our offer and our vendor has lost out on the house they wanted to buy with their partner. By a weird quirk of fate, this has been very good for us. As I write this, our house is being packed up and we’ve found a property we love at a very good price.
Negotiation can be intense, and despite good preparation and dialogue, tension often rises most when proposals hit the table. Recognise that what looks like aggressive behaviour can also be triggered by someone having a bad day, having been requested to take an extreme position by their superior or, the counterparty have not prepared effectively and have misunderstood the difference between ambitious and extreme. In this instance, taking time to reflect and probe what might be driving the other party’s position and taking an adjournment can offer a fresh set of options other than fanning the flame.
While competitive behaviour can result in positive results in some situations, they are most effective when balanced with cooperative tactics. A successful negotiator often blends competitive objectives and collaborative strategies, adapting their approach based on the dynamics of the negotiation and the ultimate outcome. Building rapport and seeking win-win solutions can lead to more sustainable agreements and better long-term relationships.
Perhaps the best option, and certainly one we would recommend is to be competitive on what you want to achieve but collaborative about how you achieve it.
