Competing, Accommodating and Collaborating
The choice of style is dependent on the values of a society in which the business exists. For example, a collectivist society values harmony and strengthening social relationships where these values always take precedence over the completion of tasks and personal desires. In such a society, the efforts of individual businesses are meant to serve a collective good. On the other hand, in individualistic societies, the values are: assertiveness, individual achievement, autonomy and competition (Tjosvold, Leung & Johnson, 2000). Here, personal achievements and satisfaction are the primary objectives.
Competing is a style where the needs of the business come first over the needs of others. The major tenet of this style is aggressive communication. The aim of being aggressive is so that the other party’s interests seem subordinate to those the business in question. One of the most effective ways of being overly assertive is the use of threats. This underhand technique has been found to be very effective and it involves extensive research into the competing business’ ways of conducting business and history to establish areas where it might be vulnerable to blackmail. The competing style of negotiation is the least diplomatic of all other styles (Gates, 2011). This is because the business in question has very low regard of the other party’s interests. In most cases, this type of style is used where the business must win as a last result. This entails situations where the business must come first in order for it to survive or to get ahead of the competition.
Accommodating on the other hand is the complete opposite of competing. Here, the individual business’ interests are secondary to those of others. Diplomacy is key in this style as the business yields to the needs of others. Accommodating style values relationships with other businesses thus making a point of ensuring that competing interests do not drive a wedge between them. In avoiding conflicts that might damage the relationship between two parties, one party decides to yield on principle so that the other can gain. In most cases accommodating occurs where an individual business exists within a given group with mutual benefits accruing. Here, the business will be asked to allow another to capitalize a given situation with the expectation that a future opportunity will be accorded to it. For as long as the business is in the group, its particular interests are balanced with those of others to ensure that there is equity and guaranteed survival or profitability for each.
Collaborating entails pooling the needs and goals of individual businesses towards a unified goal. This negotiation style is often referred to as the win-win problem-solving style. This is because neither party in the negotiation comes out ahead of the other. There is an extensive give-and-take exchange in this style where a better solution for all parties is envisaged and where individual solutions would not suffice (Shell, 2006). The basic principle here is building consensus. The needs of all parties in the conflict are integrated and the negotiators consider exceeding the budget of possibilities that is usually at the centre of such conflict. New ideas, energy and time are the basic ingredients in the resolution of disputes. Collaboration is similar to both competing and accommodating styles to a certain extent since it is an amalgam of the two. For it to be successful, negotiating parties must strike a balance between assertiveness and cooperativeness. Communication must be tempered so that neither party irks the other or is too hostile curtailing the negotiation process.
All these negotiation styles infer some sort of control for the desired outcome to be achieved. Competing is pegged on having maximum control of the negotiation process. Businesses that are competing are sometimes driven by the fear that the loss of control will result in outcomes that may not be favorable to them. The desire to exercise maximum control in a negotiation may lead to different outcomes depending on the requirements of the other party in the negotiation. If the other party is accommodating, then the competing party achieves its desired results with minimum fuss. However, where there are two competing interests, the resolution of the conflict might take a lot of time or might end up with other undesired consequences. Therefore, a business that is seeking to establish a favorable negotiation style for its conflicts must first decide what it values most. The choice is usually between the relationship with the competing party or the favorable outcome. Where both parties have competing interests, with assertiveness leading to a favorable result for one meaning that the other leaves empty handed, the relationship between the two parties will inevitably deteriorate. However, where the other party is accommodating, then achievement of the desired result is at no damage to the relationship.
A business must always decide what its priorities are in every negotiation. In some instances, the opportunities that it is competing for might be secondary to having a good relationship with the competing party. Where the business deems the concerns of the other party as being more important than its own or where the balance between a favorable outcome and a health relationship tips in favor of the relationship, then it is best to cede ground to the other party and yield. Accommodating is a very misunderstood concept as many businesses view it as losing at the expense of others. Contrary to this opinion, accommodating is a strategy that if well executed lays the ground for more opportunities in the future. This is because this action leads to the establishment of a mutual relationship between the two parties which lead to the yielded party considering the other party’s interest over its own in future engagements. Additionally, businesses should be tactical enough to realize that ceding ground in one scenario in order to capitalize on an even bigger one immensely benefits them. Consider a scenario where two businesses are competing for a sizeable contract; but where one business has additional information that a better contract is in the offing once the present one is finalized. The negotiating parties will both be assertive in order to get the contract. However, the business with the additional information will tactfully yield to the pressure of the other business with the full knowledge of a better contract soon to be offered. When the new opportunity arises, the business that got the first contract will be so embroiled into it such that it will not have an interest in the new contract. Thus, accommodating leads to an advantage if tactfully employed.
Perhaps the most widely used negotiation style is collaborating. This ensures that the status quo is maintained as neither business comes out ahead of the other. This process is the most gruesome as a consensus must be arrived at; where both parties in the negotiation feel comfortable. This is because individual interests and needs must be coalesced into a unified interest and goal that is mutually beneficial to both parties. Collaborating is difficult since the result must be a win-win for both parties and not as simple as one taking all at the expense of the other as is the outcome in the other two.
Conflict management stems from the realization that the existence of conflicts is a natural phenomenon in the course of doing business (Hofstede, 1980). The choice of conflict management style is made depending on a dual-concern model where a business considers its own interests or the interests of others. The two concerns are either being assertive or cooperative. Assertiveness is the level to which a business seeks to satisfy its own concerns whereas cooperativeness seeks to measure the level to which a business considers the concerns of others. The result in a hypothetical situation always amounts to sharing a cake that is at 100%. Maximum assertiveness for a business is attained when the business gets 100% of the cake, whereas maximum cooperativeness is when the business gets 0% of the cake with the 100% going to a competing interest. The former scenario falls under the competing conflict management style where there is high concern for self and low concern for other while the latter is under accommodating conflict management style where there is low concern for self and high concern for others. Collaborating is a when there is high concern for both self and others meaning that the hypothetical cake is shared on a 50-50 basis.
References
Gates, S. (2011). The Negotiation Book. United Kingdom: A John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Publication.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Shell, R.G. (2006). Bargaining for advantage. New York, NY: Penguin Books
Tjosvold, D., Leung, K. & Johnson, D. (2000). Cooperative and competitive conflict in China. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (pp. 475-495). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]