1. Win-Lose Negotiations
The vast majority of games are zero-sum.
A common analogy for a zero-sum game is dividing a pie. The pie doesn't get smaller or bigger — the players play a game to decide who gets the bigger slice.
If you're facing a win-lose negotiation focus your strategy on determining the other party's minimum requirements (e.g. bottom price).
2. Win-Win Negotiations
One partner may win and the other may lose. However, a win-win outcome is possible because they hope to make money on their investment (expand the pie).
Salary negotiations and business-to-business sales can usually be considered win-win.
Win-win negotiations may be just as focused on building a bigger pie as dividing the pie fairly. Every effort should be made to keep negotiations friendly and constructive.
3. Lose-Lose
Lawsuits are often lose-lose.
Let's say you leave your jacket at a restaurant coat-check and they lose it. Your negotiations for compensation with the restaurant's manager are lose-lose. Your not likely to get more money than the coat was worth. The restaurant also loses.
Lose-lose negotiations can quickly turn bitter and adversarial. Despite the fact that both parties will lose it's important to try to maintain a collaborative approach.
4. Adversarial Negotiations
Win-lose and lose-lose negotiations are most likely to be adversarial. Nobody wants to lose, this tends to drive intense competition.
In some cases, win-win negotiations are also adversarial. For example, high stakes business-to-business sales negotiations often become adversarial (customer vs seller).
In extreme cases, negotiations are adversarial because the parties involved intensely dislike each other. In such cases, negotiators may not be interested in winning. Instead, they may seek to maximize the losses of the other party. Negotiations between political rivals may turn destructive in this way.
Adversarial negotiations require battle strategies.
5. Collaborative Negotiations
Collaborative negotiations rely on persuasive techniques, optimism and creativity.
6. Multi-Party Negotiations
International treaties between nations are often multi-party.
Multi-party negotiations require advanced diplomatic techniques.
7. Bad Faith Negotiation
Bad faith negotiation is often used as a delay or diversionary tactic. For example, a country may sign an environmental treaty with no intention of implementing it just to relieve political pressure from its citizens.
If you suspect that the other side is negotiating in bad faith, it's time to start thinking about penalties in your agreement.
The vast majority of games are zero-sum.
A common analogy for a zero-sum game is dividing a pie. The pie doesn't get smaller or bigger — the players play a game to decide who gets the bigger slice.
If you're facing a win-lose negotiation focus your strategy on determining the other party's minimum requirements (e.g. bottom price).
2. Win-Win Negotiations
One partner may win and the other may lose. However, a win-win outcome is possible because they hope to make money on their investment (expand the pie).
Salary negotiations and business-to-business sales can usually be considered win-win.
Win-win negotiations may be just as focused on building a bigger pie as dividing the pie fairly. Every effort should be made to keep negotiations friendly and constructive.
3. Lose-Lose
Lawsuits are often lose-lose.
Let's say you leave your jacket at a restaurant coat-check and they lose it. Your negotiations for compensation with the restaurant's manager are lose-lose. Your not likely to get more money than the coat was worth. The restaurant also loses.
Lose-lose negotiations can quickly turn bitter and adversarial. Despite the fact that both parties will lose it's important to try to maintain a collaborative approach.
4. Adversarial Negotiations
Win-lose and lose-lose negotiations are most likely to be adversarial. Nobody wants to lose, this tends to drive intense competition.
In some cases, win-win negotiations are also adversarial. For example, high stakes business-to-business sales negotiations often become adversarial (customer vs seller).
In extreme cases, negotiations are adversarial because the parties involved intensely dislike each other. In such cases, negotiators may not be interested in winning. Instead, they may seek to maximize the losses of the other party. Negotiations between political rivals may turn destructive in this way.
Adversarial negotiations require battle strategies.
5. Collaborative Negotiations
Collaborative negotiations rely on persuasive techniques, optimism and creativity.
6. Multi-Party Negotiations
International treaties between nations are often multi-party.
Multi-party negotiations require advanced diplomatic techniques.
7. Bad Faith Negotiation
Bad faith negotiation is often used as a delay or diversionary tactic. For example, a country may sign an environmental treaty with no intention of implementing it just to relieve political pressure from its citizens.
If you suspect that the other side is negotiating in bad faith, it's time to start thinking about penalties in your agreement.
In game theory they call a win-lose negotiation a zero-sum game.
Win-win negotiations involve expanding the pie. For example, if two people decide to go into business together: their partnership negotiations are win-win.
Lose-Lose negotiations involve a situation in which everyone is going to lose.
Adversarial negotiations are highly competitive in nature.
Collaborative negotiations are creative and friendly. For example, business partnership negotiations are often collaborative. Win-win negotiations that are expected to yield big wins tend to be collaborative.
Multi-Party negotiations are complex negotiations between two or more parties. They can be extremely challenging and may take years to complete.
Bad faith negotiation occurs when a party makes commitments that they have no intention of keeping.
There are 10 tips and tactics for dealing with conflict:
1: Ask questions
2: Analyze expectations
3: Recognize differing perspectives
4. Identify mistakes
5: Watch out for emotional triggers2: Analyze expectations
3: Recognize differing perspectives
4. Identify mistakes
6: Focus on preventing escalation
7: Take action to control the situation
8: Commit to working it out
9: De-escalate the conflict
10: Stay calm
For the explanations below:
1. Conflict can arise due to poor communication — someone didn't say what they meant to say or perhaps misstated what was intended. Before you allow an escalation, ask questions. It won't cause any loss of face, and may result in a quick resolution.
2. Often, conflicts develop as a result of unmet expectations on one side. If the other party — expected something they didn't get or something that didn't happen, the whole conversation can become negative and closed. If a conversation seems to be getting rocky, take a step back and review together with the other person to try to uncover what just occurred.
3. Keep in mind that conflict may arise due to people having different perceptions. You, or the other person, saw things differently. This happens most frequently when one is dealing with someone from another organization, background, or culture. It's easy to believe that we all see things the same way and then get derailed unexpectedly.
4. Honest and unintended mistakes frequently result in conflict. Before you let temperatures rise, do a reality check of your understanding with the other person(s). Mistakes, even small ones, can erode one's credibility — someone made a mistake.
5. Beware of emotions. Fear of someone or somebody, loss of face, whether real or perceived, anger, and surprisingly even excitement can all result in unintended conflict, which may cause your interaction to go downhill.
6. Conflict resolutions always start with one or both parties making an honest attempt at avoiding further escalation. This recognition, even if only by one of those involved, often causes a more objective review to occur.
7. Escalation-avoidance tactics may involve one of more key steps including separating the parties, changing the location of the discussion, signaling empathy to the other involved.
8. Take charge of the process by committing to reach a resolution. A powerful impact occurs when one person makes this statement. It can turn down the temperature immediately.
9. De-escalation is next: This can be accomplished with a joint statement of the facts at hand, always eliminating exaggerations, embellishments or personalities, which may inadvertently apply judgments and re-created the cycle of escalation.
10. Cooler heads prevail in even the most difficult conflicts. Whether you're in a business or personal situation, you can take control of it by keeping cool. And when you're maintaining your calm, it will be easier for others involved to get back to the task at hand.
